[extracted    from     "the     PRESBYTERIAN    AND     REFORMED     REVIEW"    FOR 

APRIL.    1901.] 


^. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE 


Westminster  Confession, 


AND  ESPECIALLY  OF  ITS 


Chapter  on  the  Decree  of  God. 


By  Benjamin  B.  Warfield, 

Professor  in  Princeton  Seminary. 


philadelphia  : 

MacCalla  &  Company, 

1901. 


\ 


\ 


THE    MAKING    OF    THE    WESTMINSTER    CON- 
FESSION, AND  ESPECIALLY  OF  ITS  CHAP- 
TER  ON  THE  DECREE  OF  GOD. 

IT  is  the  purpose  of  this  article  to  give  as  clear  a  view  as 
possible  of  the  process  by  which  the  Westminster  Confession 
was  made.  In  prosecuting  this  purpose  two  tasks  present  them- 
selves. One  concerns  the  modes  of  procedure  of  the  Assembly  in 
framing  the  Confession  ;  the  other  the  course  of  the  debates  by 
which  it  was  beaten  out.  We  shall  attempt  to  give  some  account 
of  both  matters.  The  latter  offers  so  wide  a  field,  however,  that 
we  shall  be  constrained  to  deal  with  it  by  sample — and,  for  reasons 
which  will  readily  suggest  themselves  at  the  present  juncture,  we 
shall  select  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession  as  the  sample  to 
be  dealt  with.  We  shall  therefore  try  first  to  trace  the  formal 
procedure  of  the  Assembly  in  framing  the  whole  Confession,  and 
to  obtain  some  adequate  conception  of  the  labor  and  time  that  was 
expended  on  it ;  and  then,  taking  up  the  third  chapter,  we  shall 
essay  to  reconstruct  as  fully  as  may  be  a  picture  of  the  actual 
work  of  the  Assembly  in  producing  it.* 

I. — How  THE  Confession  was  Made. 

The  amount  of   time  consumed  directly  on  the  preparation  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  was  certainly  very  great.     But  even  this 

*  The  fundamental  authority  for  the  study  of  the  work  of  the  Assembly  for  the 
period  covered  by  it  is,  of  course,  the  volume  of  its  Minutes  edited  by  Drs.  A.  F. 
Mitchell  and  John  Struthers,  and  published  by  the  Blackwoods  in  1874.  Along 
with  this  Dr.  Mitchell's  "  Baird  Lectures"  on  The  Westminster  Assembly :  Its 
History  and  Standards  (Second  Ed.,  Philadelphia,  1897),  should  be  consulted. 
Next  to  the  Minutes  the  fullest  sonrce  of  information  is  Robert  Baillie's  Letters 
and  Journals,  edited  by  Mr.  David  Laing  (Edinburgh,  1841).  A  very  painstak- 
ing study  of  the  whole  constructive  work  of  the  Assembly  has  recently  been 
published  by  Dr.  Wm.  A.  Shaw  in  his  History  of  the  Enf/lish  Church  during  the 
Civil  Wars  and  under  the  Gommoimealth,  I64O-I66O  (2  vols.,  London  and  New 
York:  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  1900)— a  book  simply  packed  with  facts.  The 
present  article  was  unfortunately  written  before  Dr.  Shaw's  book  came  into  our 
hands.  But  we  have  carefully  compared  it  with  the  accoant  he  bus  given  (in  pages 
357-367  of  his  first  volume)  and  examined  the  data  afresh  in  the  light  of  his  nar- 
rative—not without  profit  to  ourselves,  or,  occasionally,  correction  of  details  in  Dr. 
Shaw's  narrative.  Where  our  account  difi'ers  from  Dr.  Shaw's,  therefore,  it  is  to 
be  understood  that  the  difference  is  not  unintentional. 
Reprinted  from  the  April,  1901,  number  of  The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed Revew. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       227 

does  not  completely  represent  the  pains  expended  on  tliis  task. 
To  estimate  that  fairly,  there  should  also  be   taken  into  account 
the  time  and   care    given  formally  to^' other  subjects,  which  yet 
necessarily  conduced  indirectly  to  the  perfecting  of  the  final  state- 
ment of    doctrine.     Nearly  all   the  labors  of  the  body,  from  its 
coming    together   on   July    1,    1643    till   the    completion    of    the 
Shorter  Catechism  on  April  12,  161:8,  may  without  exaggeration 
be  said  to  have  had  a  doctrinal  side  ;  and  much  time  was  spent  in 
direct  doctrinal  discussion.     J^one  of  this  discussion  that  was  pre- 
cedent to  or  contemporary  with  the  formulation  of  the  propositions 
incorporated  into  the  Confession  was  lost  labor  with  respect  to  it. 
There  were  in  particular  three  or  four  of  the  tasks  of  the  Assem- 
bly, however,  which  bore   so  immediately  on  its  preparation  for 
framing  the  Confession  that  they  deserve  especial  mention  in  this 
connection. 

Among  these  the  first  in  time  to  occupy  its  attention  was  the 
revision  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  to  which  it  was  set  on  first 
coming  together.*  This  was  the  main  work  of  the  Assembly 
from  the  8th  of  July  to  the  12  th  of  October,  164:3,  and  it  neces- 
sarily led  to  a  somewhat  thorough  review,  at  the  very  outset  of 
its  labors,  of  the  doctrines  of  God  and  the  Trinity,  the  Person  and 
Work  of  Christ,  the  Scriptures  and  Rule  of  Faith,  Original  Sin 
and  tbe  Freedom  of  the  Will,  Justification  and  Sanctification — the 
main  topics  on  which  the  first  sixteen  Articles  touch.  Light- 
foot's  Journal  contains  very  little  record  of  the  debates  that 
were  held  in  the  course  of  this  revision,  f  and  we  should  per- 
haps be  in  danger  of  underestimating  their  reach  and  thorough- 
ness, had  not  some  fuller  intimation  of  them  been  preserved  in  the 
manuscript  Minutes  and  some  specimens  of  their  nature  in  the 
published  speeches  of  Dr.  Featley.  It  is  evident  that  verv  careful 
and  thoroughgoing  work  was  done,  of  which  the  text  of  the 
revised  Articles  themselves  gives  but  meagre  suggestion.  All  this 
told  afterward  on  the  formulation  of  these  same  topics  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  "  The  keen  and  lengthened  debates,"  remarks 
Dr.  Mitchell,  "  which  occurred  in  the  discussions  on  these  Articles 
could  not  fail  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  more  summary  mode  of 
procedure  in  connection  with  the  Confession  of  Faith.  The  pro- 
ceedings then  were  more  summary,  or  at  least  more  summarily 
recorded,  jiist  because  the  previous  discussions  on  the  more  impor- 
tant doctrines  of  the  Protestant  system,  and  especially  on  that  of 

*  See  the  full  and  very  interesting  acconnt  of  this  work  given  by  Dr.  Mitchell, 
Baird  Lectures,  150  srj.  Cf.  Dr.  Briggs'  article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review  for 
January,  1880. 

t  He  notes  the  emergence  of  the  matter  only  on  July  8,  10,  11,  15,  17,  18,  27,  28, 
August  1,  18,  October  12. 


228  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Jastification  by  Faith,  had  been  thorough  and  exhaustive,  aud 
pretty  fully  recorded."*  There  does  not  even  lack  evidence  that 
in  framing  the  very  language  of  the  Confession,  regard  was  had 
to  the  minutise  of  the  work  done  on  this  former  occasion.  Now 
and  again  little  points  of  phraseology,  for  example,  are  taken  over 
into  the  Confessional  statements  from  the  revised  Articles, f  such 
as  serve  to  show  that  the  Divines  kept  their  former  labors  fully  in 
mind  in  the  prosecution  of  their  later,  and  were  perfecting  their 
work  in  full  view  of  all  that  had  previously  been  done.:{: 

Of  far  less  importance,  but  perhaps  worth  mentioning  in  this 
connection,  was  the  work  done  by  the  Assembly  in  the  spring  of 
1645,  in  defining  for  the  House  of  Commons  "  the  particulars  of 
that  ignorance  and  scandal  for  which  persons  should  be  excluded 
from  the  sacrament." §  On  this  occasion,  also,  though  in  a  more 
summary  manner,  the  Assembly  had  occasion,  prior  to  its  entrance 
on  the  actual  preparation  of  the  Confession,  to  review  in  a  sys- 
tematic exhibit  all  the  chief  topics  of  a  dogmatic  system,  ji 

Many  topics  which  touched  on  the  subjects  treated  in  parallel  por- 
tions of  the  Confession  were  also  debated  in  the  preparation  of  the 
Form  of  Government ;  and,  we  may  be  sure,  this  was  not  without 
consciousness  on  the  part  of  the  debaters  that  their  investigations 
would  bear  double  fruit.  We  meet,  for  example,  on  May  6,  1645, 
before  any  part  of  the  Confession  had  come  before  the  Assembly, 
a  note  like  this  :  "  Debate  whether  to  bring  this  under  the 
head  of  government  or  a  Confession  of  Faith."  And  accordingly 
the  proposition  thus  debated  was  in  substance  actually  incorporated 
into  the  subsequently  framed    Confession.  ^[     Similarly  the  long 

*  Baird  Lectures,  p.  150.     Cf.  Shaw,  i,  147. 

t  Thus  :  Art.  I.  Old  and  Revised  Arte,  and  Conf.  of  Faith  :  "of  one  salvation  " 
(Irish  :  "of  one  and  the  same  salvation").  Art.  II.  Old  and  Revised  Artt.  and 
Conf.  of  Faith:  "very  and  eternal  God"  (Irish:  "true  and  eternal  God"). 
Especially  the  following:  Art.  II.  Revised  Artt.  and  Conf.  of  Faith  :  "And  the 
manhood"  (Old  Artt.  and  Irish  omit  "the");  Art.  X.  Revised  Artt.  and  Conf  of 
Faith  :   "or  [to]  prepare"  (Old  Artt.  and  Irish  :  "and  prepare"). 

J  The  text  of  the  Westminster  revision  of  the  first  15  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England  may  be  found  la  Hall's  Harmony  of  Protestant  Confessions  ;  Neal's  His- 
tory of  the  Puritans,  Appendix  No.  vii ;  Stoughton's  History  of  the  Church  of  the 
Commonwealth,  Appendix,  pp.  228  sq.;  but  correctly  as  to  the  8th  Article  only  io 
E.  Tyrrell  Green's  The  'Thirty-Nine  Articles  and  the  Age  of  the  Reformation 
(London,  1896),  Appendix  iv,  pp.  342  sq.  Mr.  Green  marks  all  the  changes  made 
in  the  text.  For  the  Preface  and  revised  Article  8,  see  especially  Mitchell  and 
Strathers,  Minutes,  pp.  541-2.     Cf  Schafif,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  1,  654  sq. 

I  A  good  account  is  given  by  Shaw,  History,  etc.,  I,  pp.  259-261.  Cf.  Journals 
of  Commons,  iv,  89  sq.,  etc.,  and  Minutes  of  Assembly  for  March  1,  5,  21,  24,  28, 
April  2  (4?),  21  (August  14),  16 15. 

II  For  some  indication  of  the  nature  of  these  topics  see  below,  p.  234 . 
11  Chap,  xxiii,  I  3. 


THE  MAKING  OF  TUE  WESTMINSTElt  CONFESSION.       229 

debates  on  thej/w?  divinum  cannot  fail  to  have  borne  fruit  both  for 
the  Government  and  for  sach  chapters  of  the  Confession  as  that  on 
"  The  Church  and  Church  Censures,"  then  in  process  of  framing. 
Finally  the  labors  of  the  Assembly  in  preparing  its  Catechism, 
so  far  as  they  were  carried  on  before  the  Confession  left  its  handsi 
were  of  course  of  use  to  it  in  preparing  the  Confession  also.  In 
some  sense,  these  labors  began  indeed  as  early  as  December,  1643  : 
but  the  matter  incorporated  into  the  Catechism  does  not  seem  to 
have  come  before  the  Assembly  itself  earlier  than  September  14, 
IGIG,  from  which  date  until  January  4,  1(347,  the  substance  of  the 
original  Catechism  was  reported  as  far  as  that  project  was  prose- 
cuted by  the  Assembly.*  During  this  period  the  Assembly  was 
in  the  process  of  its  review  of  the  text  of  the  Confession,  and  had 
reached  a  portion  of  it  for  which  the  debates  upon  the  Catechism 
could  afltord  little  or  no  aid.f  The  scrutiny  of  the  substance  of 
doctrine  for  the  Catechism  therefore  could  serve  as  a  help  in  the 
formulation  of  the  Confession  only  in  so  far  as  the  members  of  the 
Committee  at  work  on  the  Catechism  were  moulding  their  opinions 
by  it.  In  the  general  Assembly  the  influence  was  the  other  way 
about.  In  fact,  Baillie  tells  us  that  on  the  reporting  of  the  first 
matter  for  the  Catechism,  the  Assembly  fell  on  such  "  rubbes  and 
long  debates  "  that  it  was  purposely  "  laid  aside  till  the  Confes- 
sion wes  ended,  with  resolution  to  have  no  matter  in  it  but  what 
wes  expressed  in  the  Confession,  which  should  not  be  debated  over 
againe  in  the  Catechise.":}:  The  subject  is  nevertheless  worth  men- 
tioning here  as  indicating  afresh  how  repeatedly  the  Divines  were, 
in  committee  or  in  full  house,  led  to  go  over  the  whole  series  of 
doctrinal  statements  either  prior  to  or  parallel  with  their  work  in 
formulating  the  Confession  :  all  of  which  repeated  reviews  of  the 
matter  to  be  placed  in  the  Confession  of  course  were  of  use  in  its 
formulation  for  that  purpose. 

If  there  ever  was  a  document,  therefore,  whose  contents  might 

*See  especially  Mitchell,  Baird  Lecturex,  p.  470  sq.,  but  compare  Shaw,  I,  p. 
369,  note.  References  may  be  foiiml  in  the  Minutes  on  December  2,  1611 ;  February 
7,  1645  ;  May  13,  1:5,  August  1,  4,  5,  19,  20,  22,  September  11.  Then  especially 
September  14,  1646,  15,  17,  22,  2;?,  24,  November  27,  :50,  December  1,  2,  7,  10,  11, 
14,  15,  10,  17,  18,  28,  31,  January,  4  and  14,  1647,  on  which  last  clay  the  order  was 
given  to  intermit  the  preparation  of  the  Catechism  on  which  the  Assembly  had 
hitherto  been  working  and  to  cast  the  material  into  two  Catechisms.  The  text  of 
this  "  first  Catechism,"  so  far  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  Miimtcs,  has  been  put  to- 
gether by  INfr.  Wm.  Carruthers,  in  his  admirable  The  Shorter  Catechism  of  the 
Westminster  Assojibli/  of  Divines,  in  facsimile,  etc.  (London,  1897),  pp.  21-26. 

t  When  the  fir.'5t  propositions  from  the  Catechism  were  reported  the  Assembly 
had  just  passed  chap  .xvii  of  the  Confession  (though  one  or  two  immediately  pre- 
ceding cliapters  were  not  yet  passed). 

JII,  379,  July  16,  1646. 


230  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

be  expected  to  exhibit  that  genius,  the  essence  of  which  consists, 
we  are  told,  in  talcing  pains^  it  assuredly  is  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  And  when  we  read  its  exquisitely  balanced 
phrases,  and  are  moved  with  admiration  for  the  perfection  of  the 
guarding  which  it  gives  to  its  doctrinal  propositions  on  this  side 
and  that,  we  are  reaping  the  benefit  of  these  repeated  reviews 
which  the  Assembly  was  forced  to  give  the  whole  matter,  perhaps 
even  more  than  of  the  minute  scrutiny  it  lavished  on  the  formu- 
lation of  it  on  the  final  occasion  of  its  actual  incorporation  into  the 
Confession.  And  when,  after  this,  and  in  the  light  of  all  the 
experience  gained  by  such  repeated  reviews  of  the  material,  first 
the  Larger  Catechism  and  then  the  Shorter  Catechism  were  elab- 
orated, it  is  not  at  all  strange  that  a  precision  of  definition  was  at- 
tained which  has  called  forth  such  praises  as  these  documents,  and 
especially  the  Shorter  Catechism,  have  received  from  the  most  va- 
ried quarters. 

The  framing  of  a  new  Confession  of  Faith  was  a  portion  of  the 
task  that  devolved  on  the  Westminster  Assembly  through  the 
provisions  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  by  which  an 
engagement  was  entered  into  for  "  bringing  the  Church  of  God  in 
the  three  kingdoms  to  the  nearest  conjunction  and  uniformity  in 
religion,  Confession  of  Faith,  form  of  Church -government,  direc- 
tories for  worship  and  for  catechising."*  The  prosecution  of  the 
work  of  uniting  the  two  Churches  in  a  common  Confession  of 
course  involved  the  substitution  of  a  new  Confession,  agreed  upon 
by  both  Churches,  for  those  previously  in  use,  whether  in  Scotland 
or   in    England ;    it    accordingly    rendered    the    revision   of    the 

*  It  is  with  reference  to  this  engagement  that  the  following  minute,  entered 
immediately  after  the  completion  of  the  (Larger)  Catechism,  October  15,  1647,  musfc 
be  read :  "Upon  a  motion  made  by  Mr.  Kutherfonl,  it  was  Ordered—That  it  be 
recorded  in  the  Scribes'  books,  '  The  Assembly  hath  enjoyed  Ihe  assistance  of  the 
jjQjjbie  lleverend  and  learned  Commissioners  from  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  the 
work  of  the  Assembly  ;'  during  all  the  time  of  the  debating  and  perfecting  of  the 
4  things  mentioned  in  the  Covenant,  viz.,  the  Directory  for  Worship,  the  Confession 
of  Faitli,  Form  of  Church  Government,  and  Catechism,  some  of  the  Eeverend  and 
learned  Divines  Commissioners  from  the  Church  of  Scotland  have  been  present  in 
and  assisting  to  this  Assembly."  There  is  no  question  here  of  a  farewell  to  the 
Assembly  :  but  of  a  record  of  covenanted  work  completed.  Rutherford's  leave- 
taking  was  made  on  November  9  subsequent.  The  relation  of  the  Scottish  Com- 
missioners to  the  Assembly  and  its  work  is  not  always  fully  understood  :  it  is 
lucidly  explained  by  Dr.  Mitchell  in  his  Baird  Lectures,  pp.  180-181,  note.  They 
were  not  members  of  the  Assembly  and  cast  no  vote  in  it :  they  took  part  in  its 
deb-ites  only  as  private  persons  on  its  invitation.  They  were  representatives  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland  coordinate  as  a  body  with  the  Assembly  as  a  whole,  which 
represented  the  Church  of  England,  and  conferring  with  it  as  a  whole  on  the  com- 
mon formularies. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       231 

XXXIX  Articles,  on  whicli  the  Assembly  bad  been  engaged  darino- 
the  first  months  of  its  labors,  no  longer  ad  rem.  No  doubt  the 
persistency  of  the  Commons  in  securing  the  insertion  into  the 
"  Ordinance  "  calling  the  Assembly  of  a  clause  setting  forth  as 
one  of  the  objects  in  view  the  procuring  of  a  "  nearer  agreement 
with  the  Church  of  Scotland,"*  although  more  particularly  refer- 
ring to  the  point  of  "  Government,"  affected  in  some  degree  the 
whole  work  of  the  Assembly  and  bore  fruit  even  in  its  revision 
of  the  XXXIX  Articles.  But  the  particular  instructions  given  re- 
garding the  revision  of  these  Articles  limited  the  Assembly  to  ' '  vin- 
dicating and  clearing  them  from  all  false  calumnies  and  aspersions," 
and  the  Assembly  itself  looked  upon  this  work  accordingly  as  "  re- 
lating only  to  the  Church  of  England. "f  When  now,  on  the  2oth 
September,  1643,  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was  taken,  the 
whole  situation  was  changed.  Parliament  was  now  committed  to 
that  policy  of  uniformity  ia  religion  for  the  whole  country  for 
which  the  Scots  had  been  unwearyingly  pressing  ever  since  their 
Peace  Commissioners  had  gone  up  to  London  early  in  1611,  and 
the  Assembly  considered  its  work  on  the  Articles  as  entirely  set 
aside  by  the  subsequent  order,  as  it  itself  expresses  it,  "  to  employ 
us  in  framing  a  Confession  of  Faith  for  the  three  kingdoms, 
according  to  our  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.":}:  It  was  only 
with  great  reluctance  and  with  protestations  of  their  insufficiency 
that  it  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Parliament,  when  subsequently 
required  to  do  so,  the  Articles  so  far  as  they  had   been   revised 

by  it.§ 

Nevertheless,  the  severer  task  of  forming  a  new  Confession  of 
Faith  for  the  whole  kingdom  was  not  at  once  entered  upon.  A 
still  more  severe  and,  in  the  judgment  of  all  alike,  a  still  more 
pressing  task  required  attention  first — the  framing  of  a  unifying 
"Government"  for  the  Churches  of  the  whole  kingdom.  This 
great  labor  was  begun  on  October  12,  161:3,  and  consumed  the  ener- 
gies and  time  of  the  Assembly  for  many  months.  The  first  motion 
toward  undertaking  the  new  Confession  was  made  apparently  on 
Tuesday  morning,  August  20,  1611.  Sir  Archibald  Johnston  of 
"Warriston,  lately  arrived  from  Scotland,  appeared  in  the  Assembly 
on  August  14,  bringing  letters  from  the  General  Assembly  ;  and 
in  presenting:  them  he  emphasized   "  the  general  desire  of  all  the 

*  See  Shaw,  I,  127,  note,  and  cf.  the  Ordinance  itself  as  printed  in  most  Scotch 
editions  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  ia  Dr.  Mitchell's  Baird  Lectures,  p.  xiii  sq. 

\  So  it  says  in  \ti  Preface  prelixed  to  the  portion  of  the  XXXIX  Articles  it  had 
revised,  when  this  was  sent  up  to  the  Commons.  See  the  Preface  in  Minutes,  pp. 
541-2. 

X  Preface  to  XXXIX  Articles,  as  above.     Cf.  Mitchell,  Baird  Lectures,  p.  185. 

^  Mitchell,  Baird  Lectures,  161. 


232  2 HE  PRESBTTERIAl^  AND  REFOBMED  REVIEW. 

nation  of  Scotland  for  the  hastening  of  the  work  on  hand  ' '  — that 
is,  the  work  of  completing  the  nniformity  in  all  its  parts  in 
accordance  with  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  In  his 
response  Dr.  Burgess  added  his  voice  to  Warriston's  :  and  "  Mr. 
Henderson  also  spake  to  the  same  purpose,  ot  forwarding  and 
hastening  our  work.  Whereupon  it  was  ordered  that  the  Grand 
Committee  should  meet  to-morrow."*  The  report  from  the  Grand 
Committee  came  in  on  August  20,  and  contained  five  resolutions 
designed  for  expediting  the  work.  The  second  of  these  proposed 
"  a  committee  to  join  with  the  Commissions  ot  Scotland  to  draw 
up  a  confession  of  faith."  No  order,  however,  was  as  yet  come 
from  Parliament  "  to  enable  us  to  such  a  thing,  "f  and  the  propo- 
sition, therefore,  caused  some  debate  ;  but  it  was  at  last  determined 
upon,  and  a  committee  of  nine,  consisting  of  Drs.  Temple,  Gouge 
and  Hoyle,  Messrs.  Gataker,  Arrowsmith,  Burroughs,  Burgess, 
Vines  and  Goodwin,  was  appointed  to  take  the  work  in  hand.:{ 
Two  weeks  later,  Lightfoot  tells  us  further,  "  Dr.  Temple,  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  for  the  drawing  up  of  a  Confession  of 
Faith,  desired  that  that  Committee  might  be  augmented. "§     This 

*  Lightfoot,  Ed.  Pittmau,  vol.  xiii,  1824,  p.  305.  Baillie's  (ii,  220,  221)  account 
is  as  follows  :  "  So  soon  as  my  Lord  Warriston  came  up,  we  resolved  on  the  occa- 
sion of  his  instruetings,  and  the  letters  of  our  Generall  Assemblie,  both  to  ourselves 
and  to  this  Assemblie,  which  he  brought,  to  quicken  them  a  little,  who  had  great 
need,  of  spurrs.  My  Lord  Warriston  very  particularlie  declared  in  the  Assemblie 
the  passionate  desires  both  of  our  Parliament,  Assemblie,  armies,  and  whole  people, 
of  the  performance  of  the  Covenanted  Uniformitie  ;  and  withall  we  called  for  a 
meeting  of  the  grand  committee  of  Lords,  Commons,  Assemblie,  and  us  ;  to  whom 
we  gave  a  paper  penned,  notablie  well,  by  Mr.  Henderson,  bearing  the  great  evills 
of  so  long  a  delay  of  settling  religion,  and  our  earnest  desyres  that  some  wayes 
might  be  found  out  for  expedition.  This  paper  my  Lord  Say  took  to  deliver  to  the 
House  of  Lords,  Mr.  Solicitor  also  for  the  House  of  Commons,  and  a  third  copy 

was  given  to  Mr.  Marshall,  to  be  presented  to  the  Assemblie Also  we  have 

the  grand  committee  to  meet  on  Monday,  to  find  out  wayes  of  expeditione  ;  and 
we  have  gotten  it  to  be  the  work  of  the  Assemblie  itself e,  to  doe  no  other  thing  till 
they  have  found  out  wayes  of  accellerating  ;  so  by  God's  help  we  expect  a  farr 
quicker  progress  than  hitherto." 
t  Lightfoot,  as  above,  p.  305. 

X  Lightfoot,  Works,  xiii,  p.  305.  The  Assembly's  own  minute  runs:  "A  Com- 
mittee to  join  with  the  Commissioners  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  to  prepare  matter 
for  a  joint  Confession  of  Faith. 

E.  neg.  12.  R.  affirmat.  9  [to  be  a  Committee]. 

Dr.  Gouge,  Mr.  Burgess,       "] 

Mr.  Gataker,  Mr.  Vines, 

Mr.  Arrowsmith,  Mr.  Goodwin, 

Dr.  Temple,  Dr.  Hoyle, 

Mr.  Burroughs, 
See  Minutes,  p.  Ixxxvi. 

§  Lightfoot,  p.  308.  The  Assembly's  own  minute  for  September  4  runs  :  "Re- 
port from  the  Committee  for  the  Confession  of  Faith.  They  desire  an  addition  of 
these  persons  to  the  said  Committee — Ordered — Mr.  Palmer,  Mr.  Newcomen,  Mr. 


or  any  5 
of  them." 


TUE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER   CONFESSION.       283 

also  was  done,  and  there  were  added  the  names  of  Dr.  Smith  and 
Messrs.  Pahner,  Newcomen,  Hoyle,  Eeynolds,  Wilson,  Tuckney, 
Young,  Ley  and  Sedge  wick.  Baillie  congratulales  himself  that 
thus  the  preparation  of  the  Confession  had  been  "  put  in  severall 
the  best  hands  that  are  here,"  and  that  "  the  heads  of  it  being 
distribute  among  many  able  hands,  it  may  in  a  short  time  be  so 
drawn  up,  as  the  debates  of  it  may  cost  little  time."* 

It  was  not  until  the  next  summer,  nevertheless,  that  any  portion 
of  the  Confession  came  before  the  Assembly. f  In  the  spring  it 
seems  to  have  been  taken  up  in  earnest,  but  progress  was 
still  slow.:};  Baillie  informs  us  under  date  of  April  25,  1645,  that 
some  reports  had  already  been  made  to  the  Assembly. §  We  hear 
of  it  in  the  Minutes  for  the  first  time,  however,  on  Monday,  April 
21,11  and  then  after  a  fashion  that  hints  of  pressure  brought  on  the 
Assembly  for  completing  the  work.  The  Scotch  Commissioners, 
returning  on  April  9  from  their  visit  to  the  Assembly  of  the  Kirk 
of  Scotland, •[  had  had  presented  by  the  Grand  Committee  to  the 
Houses  of  Parliament  aij^  the  Assembly  of  Divines  alike  a  paper 
setting  out  the  satisfaction  of  their  Kirk  with  the  parts  of  the 
Uniformity  already  prepared,  and  urging  that  "  it  is  with  no  less 
zeal  and  earnestness  desired  and  expected  by  that  whole  Kirk  and 
kingdom,  that  the  remanent  parts  of  Uniformity  be  expedited."** 

Herle,  Mr.  Reynolds,  Mr.  Wilson,  Mr.  Tuckney,  Dr.  Smith,  Mr.  Young,  Mr.  Ley, 
Mr.  Sedgwicke  be  added  to  the  Committee  for  the  Confession  of  Faith"  (p. 
Ixxxvii). 

*  Letters  eind  Journal,  If,  pp.  232,  248. 

tOn  December  26,  1644,  Baillie  tells  us  why  the  work  on  the  Confession  was 
delayed  :  "If  the  Directorie  and  Government  were  once  out  of  our  hands,  as  a  few 
days  will  put  them,  then  we  will  fall  on  our  great  question  of  Excommunication, 
the  Catechise,  and  Confession.     There  is  here  matter  to  hold  us  long  enough,  if 

the  wrangling  humour  which  has  predomined  in  many  here  did  continue 

I  think  we  must  either  passe  the  Confession  to  another  season,  or,  if  God  will  help 
us,  the  heads  of  it  being  distribute  among  many  able  hands,  it  may  in  a  short  time 
be  so  drawn  up,  as  the  debates  of  it  may  cost  little  time.  All  this  chalking  is  on 
supposition  of  God's  singular  assistance,  continuing  such  a  disposition  in  the 
Assemblie  and  Parliament  as  has  appeared  this  monelh  or  two  bypast."  (II,  p.  248.) 

X  It  was  not  until  .July  that  any  part  of  the  text  got  before  the  Assembly.  Baillie 
(II,  275),  writing  apparently  early  in  June  (Shaw,  I,  190),  can  still  speak  of  the 
Assembly  as  only  "'beginning  to  take  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechise  to  our 
consideration,"  and  on  the  29th  August  (II,  315)  says,  "We  are  goeing  on  lan- 
guidlie  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisme.'' 

§  P.  266. 

II  References  to  the  ^linutes  are  of  course  all  to  the  volume  published  in  1874  by 
Drs.  ]\Iitchell  and  Struthers.  References  are  equally  easily  verifiable  whether  made 
by  pages,  dates,  or  numbers  of  sessions- and  therefore  we  shall  not  burden  the 
margin  with  details. 

*]  Minutes,  pp.  77.     Cf.,  pp.  28  sq. 

**This  paper  was  brought  into  the  Assembly  on  April  14  :  it  is  given  by  Dr. 
Mitchell  from  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  vol.  vii,  pp.  317,  318,  on  pp.  80- 
81,  note,  of  the  Minutes. 


234 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 


Stress  was  especially  laid  in  this  paper  on  the  completion  of  the 
Form  of  Government ;  but  when  the  paper  came  before  the  Com- 
mons (on  April  14)  it  found  that  body  engaged  on  matters  of  doc- 
trine,* and  its  immediate  fruit  was  accordingly  an  action  to  hasten 
on  the  preparation  of  the  "  Confession  of  Faith."  A  paper  had 
been  sent  up  from  the  Divines  to  both  Houses  on  March  6  looking 
to  the  "preserving  the  sacraments  pure."  and  both  Houses  had 
taken  up  the  matter  at  once.  The  debate  in  the  Commons  from 
March  25  took  the  form  of  determining  the  particulars  of  ignorance 
and  scandal  which  should  exclude  from  the  Lord's  Supper.  Several 
communications  were  passed  between  the  House,  sitting  in  com- 
mittee, and  the  Divines  by  means  of  which  it  was  determined 
what  should  be  defined  as  "  a  competent  measure  of  understand- 
ing— concerning  God  the  Father,  Sou  and  Holy  Ghost,"  "  con- 
cerning the  state  of  man  by  the  creation,  and  by  his  fall,"  "  the 
redemption  of  Jesus  Christ,  etc.,"  "  the  ways  and  means  to  apply 
Christ,  etc.,"  "  the  nature  and  necessity  of  faith,  etc.,"  "  repent- 
ance, etc.,"  "  the  nature  and  use  of  the  Sacraments,  etc.,"  "  the 
condition  of  man  after  this  life,  etc."t  The  report  of  the  Grand 
Committee  embodying  these  findings  was  made  to  the  Commons 
on  the  17th  of  April,  and  on  the  same  day  a  Committee  was 
appointed  to  draft  an  ordinance  in  the  terms  of  the  findings,:]; 
Simultaneously  the  House  voted  to  desire  the  Assembly  with  all 
convenient  speed  to  resolve  upon  a  Confession  of  Faith  for  the 
Church  of  England  and  present  it  to  the  House. §  In  this  we  may 
doubtless  see  the  combined  effects  of  the  pressure  brought  to  bear 
on  the  House  by  the  letter  from  Scotland  and  its  own  sense  of 
need  arising  from  its  labors  in  defijiing  censurable  ignorance. 
There  are  entries  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  for  April  18 
which  may  be  taken  as  indicating  the  reception  of  this  order  by 
that  body.  ||  In  this  case  it  would  seem  that  Messrs.  Seaman, 
Tuckney,  Burroughs,  Young,  Whitaker,  Rayner,  Vines  and  Dela- 
march  were  appointed  "  to  consider  of  this  order,"  and  were 
instructed  to  meet  that  afternoon  and  report  at  the  next  meeting. 
In  any  event  the  order  was  already  in  process  of  being  obeyed  at 
this   next   meeting,    Monday,   April    21.     Apparently   the    Com- 

*  See  a  full  account  of  the  work  of  the  Houses  in  this  matter  in  Shaw's  History 
of  the  English  Church  during  the,  Civil  Wars  and  under  the  CommonweaWi,  I,  pp. 
257  sq. 

tShaw,  as  above,  I,  pp.  259-261.  Minutes,  p.  71  (March  21  and  24),  p.  74 
(March  28),  p.  75  (April  2),  p.  76?  (April  4). 

X  Shaw,  I,  pp.  260-1,  citing  Commons  Journal,  IV,  114,  April  17.  The  names 
of  the  Committee  are  given  by  Shaw,  p.  261,  note. 

^  Shaw,  I,  p.  358,  citing  Commons  Journal,  IV,  113. 

II  So  Sbaw,  I,  p.  358. 


THE  MAKING  OF  TEE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       235 

mittee  appointed  on  April  18  then  reported  that  the  best  way  to 
meet  the  immediate  needs  of  Parliament  would  be  to  place  in  its 
hands  a  revised  edition  of  the  XXXIX  Articles,  to  serve  until  a 
Confession  of  Faith  could  be  prepared.  Accordingly  it  was 
ordered  that  the  Committee  in  whose  charge  the  revision  of  the 
XXXIX  Articles  had  formerly  been,  or  perhaps  the  new  Com- 
mittee of  April  18,*  should  "  consider  how  far  they  or  any  of 
them  may  be  useful  to  be  recommended  to  both  Houses  of  Parli- 
ament for  the  present,  till  a  Confession  of  Faith  can  be  drawn  up 
by  this  Assembly  ;"  and  further,  that  "  the  Committee  for  Con- 
fession of  Faith  do  meet  on  Wednesday,  in  the  afternoon." 

Nothing  further  appears  until  Friday,  May  9,t  when  a  new  order 
having  meanwhile  been  received  from  Parliament  for  dispatch,  + 
it  was  ordered  "  that  the  Assembly  consider  on  Monday  morning 
the  best  way  to  expedite  the  Confession  of  Faith,  ....  and  that 
the  two  Committees  for  the  Confession  of  Faith  be  put  into  one." 
What  two  Committees  were  here  united  we  have  no  means  of 
ascertaining,  We  have  heard  hitherto  of  only  one  Committee  to 
which  the  ' '  preparing  matter  ' '  for  a  Confession  of  Faith  was 
committed  (August  20,  1644),  and  which  was  subsequently  (Sep- 
tember 4)  augmented;  and  even  on  April  21,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  "  the  Committee  for  Confession  of  Faith  "  is  spoken  of 
quite  simply  as  if  there  were  but  one,  and  between  that  entry  and 
the  present  one  there  is  no  allusion  in  the  Minutes  to  the  matter. § 
But  Baillie,  though  in  the  previous  autumn  speaking  of  "  a  Com- 
mittee "  to  which  the  Confession  of  Faith  had  been  referred, 
under  date  of  April  25,  says,  "  The  Catechise  and  Confession  of 
Faith'are  put  in  the  hands  of  severall  committees."  |1  It  is  prob- 
ably easiest  to  suppose  that  in  the  meanwhile  another  Committee, 
additional  to  that  of  August  20-September  4,  1644,  had  been  ap- 
pointed.^ At  all  events,  in  accordance  with  the  provision  of  May 
9,  the  Assembly  on  Monday,  May  12,  proceeded  to  make  further 

*  The  language  is  :  "That  the  39  Articles  be  reviewed  by  the  former  Committee, 

and  the  Committee  to  consider  &c K. — To  be  referred  to  one  Committee." 

Hence  apparently  two  Committees  are  in  view  :  but  finally  the  whole  matter  was 
committed  to  one.      Which  one  is  not  clear. 

tOa  Tuesday,  May  G,  when  the  propositions  as  to  the  Civil  Magistrate  in  the 
Government  were  under  debate,  question  was  raised  whether  a  proposed  form  of 
statement  should  be  placed  in  the  Government  or  iu  "a  Confession  of  Faith.'' 

tShaw,  I,  358,  quoting  C.  J.,  IV,  133  :  Minutes  foe  May  8  (p.  90). 

§  Tiie  Confession  of  Faith  is  mentioned  in  the  interval  only  on  May  6  (as  above, 
p.  228),  and  then  only  incidentally  and  indeterminately. 

II  As  cited,  II,  p.  266. 

^Shaw,  I,  358,  supposes  the  "committee  to  have  subdivided"  and  to  be  now 
reunited.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  the  two  parts  ( that  appointed  Augnst  20 
and  that  appointed  September  4,)  bad  been  sitting  as  separate  committees  and  were 
only  now  combined. 


2m 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 


arrangements  for  '^expediting  the  Confession  of  Faith."  The 
report  in  the  Minutes  of  what  was  done  is  somewhat  obscure. 
But  it  appears  that  besides  reading  and  debating  "  the  report  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith,"  there  was  an  additional  "  debate  about 
the  Committee  for  drawing  up  the  Confession;"  and  it  was  deter- 
mined that  "  the  first  draught  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  shall  be 
drawn  up  by  a  Committee  of  a  few;"  which  Committee  was  then 
constituted — apparently  of  the  following  members  :  Brs.  Temple 
and  Ployle,  Messrs,  Gataker,  Harris,  Burgess,  Reynolds  and 
Herle.  This  Committee  is  then  instructed  to  meet  that  same 
afternoon  ;  and  the  Scotch  Commissioners  "  are  desired  to  be 
assisting  to  this  Committee." 

The  question  arises  whether  this  Committee  was  additional  to  the 
former  Committee  or  Committees  (of  August  20,  September  -1,  16i-i, 
and  May  9,  1645),  or  was  a  substitute  for  it  or  them.  Dr.  Mitchell 
supposes  the  former,  and  looks  upon  this  new  Committee  as 
erected  in  order  to  receive  the  material  collected  by  the  already 
existing  Committee,  or  Committees,  and  to  digest  it  into  more 
formal  shape  before  it  was  finally  submitted  to  the  Assembly.* 
There  are  certain  serious  difficulties,  however,  in  the  way  of  this  sup- 
position. And  these  are  greatly  increased  by  a  subsequent  act  of 
the  Assembly's.  On  Friday,  July  11,  1645,  it  was  ordered — "  Mon- 
day morning  to  divide  the  body  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  to  the 
three  Committees."  Accordingly  on  the  next  Monday — July  14 
— we  hear  of  a  "  debate  about  dividing  of  heads  of  confession  :" 
but  the  matter  was  not  concluded  on  that  day.  On  the  following 
"Wednesday — July  16,  1645 — we  read  of  a  "  report  made  from  the 
Committee  of  the  heads  of  Confession,"  and  it  was  ordered : 
"  The  first  Committee  to  prepare  the  Confession  of  Faith  upon 
these  heads:  God  and  the  Holy  Trinity;  God's  decrees,  Predes- 
tination, Election,  etc.;  the  works  of  Creation  and  Providence; 
Man's  Fall ;"  "  The  Second  Committee:  Sin,  and  the  punishment 
thereof ;  Free  will ;  the  Covenant  of  Grace ;  Christ  our  Media- 
tor ; "  ''  The  Third  Committee  :  Effectual  Vocation  ;  Justification  ; 
Adoption;  Sanctification  ; "  "Those  three  Committees  to  meet 
to-morrow  in  the  afternoon  ;"  "If  they  think  fit  to  leave  out  any 
of  those  heads,  or  add  any  other,  they  are  to  make  report  to  the 
Assembly."  Dr.  Mitchell  supposes  with  obvious  justice  that  the 
three  large  Committees, into  which  the  Assembly  was  permanently 
divided  for  the  preparing  of  its  business  f  are  referred  to  m  these 
orders  ;  and  that  ' '  the  material  prepared  by  the  previous  small 
Committee"   was  "  handed  over  to  these  larger  Committees,  and 

*  Baird  Lectures,  2d  ed.,  Phila.,  1897,  p.  367  sq. 

t  C.)ncerQing  them  see  Mitchell,  Baird  Lectures,  p.  147. 


THE  MAKING   OF  TUE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       237 

further  discussed  and  elaborated  by  them  before  being  brought 
before  the  Assembly."  This  seems  altogether  reasonable  in 
itself,  and  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  subsequent  proceedings.  But 
certainly,  under  this  supposition,  it  becomes  very  unlikely  that 
the  earlier  Committee  or  Committees  (of  August  20,  September 
4,  1644,  and  May  9,  1645)  still  continued  in  existence — if  for  no 
other  reason  than  the  complicated  process  which  tvould  in  that 
case  be  involved  in  getting  the  several  parts  of  the  Confession 
before  the  Assembly.  First  the  Committee  of  August  20-Sep- 
tember  4,  1644,  would  collect  the  material ;  then  the  Committee  of 
May  12,  1645,  with  the  aid  of  the  Scotch  Commissioners,  would 
digest  it ;  then  the  large  Committee  required  thereto  on  July  16, 
would  further  digest  it ;  and  only  then  would  it  reach  the  Assem- 
bly. Surely  this  complication  of  process  throws  something  in  the 
scale  to  justify  us  in  looking  on  the  Committee  of  May  12  as  a 
substitute  for  that  of  August  20-Septeniber  4,  rather  than  addi- 
tional to  it.*  In  that  case  we  must  suppose  that  the  Assembly 
had  sought  at  first  to  get  along  with  only  one  Committee,  which 
should  prepare  the  matter  of  the  Confession  for  its  discussion  ; 
that  that  first  appointed  (August  20,  1644),  augmented  on  Septem- 
ber 4,  1644,  and  again  perhaps  on  May  9,  1645,  had  proved  too 
large  and  unwieldy  for  rapid  work,  and  was  superseded  by  a 
smaller  one.  May  12,  1645 — the  members  of  which  were,  however 
(with  one  exception,  viz.,  Mr,  Harris),  taken  from  the  earlier 
Committees.  Subsequently,  for  the  better  digesting  of  the  mate- 
rial, it  was  ordered  (July  11  and  16,  1645)  that  the  reports  of  the 
Committee  should  in  the  first  instance  be  submitted  to  one  or 
the  other  of  the  three  great  Committees  into  which  the  Assembly 
was  divided  for  the  preparation  of  its  business,  and  be  by  them 
actually  brought  before  the  whole  body. 

There  are,  to  be  sure,  not  lacking  some  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
the  supposition  of  even  this  very  natural  and  workable  arrangement. 
Among  them  the  chief  are  that  in  the  action  of  May  9  we  read 
(as  we  have  seen)  of  its  being  ordered,  "  that  the  two  Committees 
for  the  Confession  of  Faith  be  put  into  one  ;"  and  in  the  action 
of  July  4  we  read  of  "  the  sub-Committee  for  the  Confession  of 
Faith,"  as  if  there  were  still  divisions  in  the  Committee;  and 
again  on  July  18  we  read  of  a  "  report  concerning  God,  by  Dr, 
Temple"  being  put  in — although  Dr.  Temple  was  not  a  member 
of  the  First  great  Committee  to  which  this  topic  was  assigned,  but 
of  the  Third  great  Committee,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  a 
member  of  the  Committee  of  May  12,  and  as  representing  it  had 

*  Shaw,  I,  p.  318,  also  seems  to  look  upon  the  Committee  of  May  12,  164"),  as  a 
substitute  for  the  former  Committee. 


238  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

"  made  report  of  that  part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  touching 
the  Scriptures"  on  July  7 — i.e.,  before  the  distribution  of  the 
heads  to  the  three  great  Committees  liad  been  made.  These 
difficulties  do  not,  however,  seem  to  be  insuperable.  We  have 
already  offered  a  suggestion  in  explanation  of  the  mention  of  two 
Committees  on  May  9.  The  term  "  Sub- Committee  "  in  the 
action  of  July  4  need  not  be  pressed  :  it  may  be,  and  probably  is, 
only  a  designation  of  the  Committee  of  May  12,  called  Sub- 
Committee  possibly  because  of  its  small  size  in  comparison  with  the 
three  great  Committees  ;  or  it  may  be  thought  not  impost  ible  that 
the  woru  on  the  topics  of  God  and  the  Scriptures  may  actually 
have  been  done  by  a  Sub- Committee  of  that  Committee.  It 
seems  further,  on  closer  examination,  that  Dr.  Temple  made  the 
report  of  July  18  on  "  God,"  as  well  as  that  of  July  7  on  "  The 
Scriptures,"  inconsequence  of  the  order  of  July  4  "  that  the  sub- 
Committee  for  the  Confession  of  Faith  shall  make  report  to  the 
Assembly  on  Monday  morning  of  what  is  in  their  hands  concerning 
Ood  and  concerning  the  Scriptures  " — so  that  these  two  topics  were 
accounted  as  in  that  manner  already  before  the  Assembly,  though 
in  the  interval  between  this  and  July  18,  when  the  "  report  con- 
cerning God,  by  Dr.  Temple,"  was — not  made,  but — ''  read  and 
debated,"  provision  had  been  made  for  another  course  to  be  sub- 
sequently pursued.  It  is  not  an  insuperable  objection  to  this 
solution  of  the  difficulty  that  in  the  distribution  of  the  heads  of 
the  Confession  to  the  three  Committees  on  July  16,  the  head  on 
"  Scripture  "  is  not  assigned  to  the  first  Committee — 'doubtless  as 
already  fully  before  the  house — while  the  head  on  "  God  and  the 
Holy  Trinity  "  is  so  assigned,  as  if  it  were  not  yet — at  least  in  full 
— before  the  house.  There  are  so  many  things  we  do  not  know 
about  the  precise  course  of  action  that  a  plausible  supposition 
such  as  we  have  suggested  may  be  allowed  to  be  probable,  even 
though  we  cannot  explain  all  the  details.  And  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  when  the  report  on  this  topic  came  from  the  first  Committee 
on  July  23,  it  was  not  of  "  God  and  the  Holy  Trinity,"  but  "  of 
the  article  of  the  Trinity."  It  may  be  taken  as  likely  then  that 
the  original  Committee  of  May  12  reported  as  required  on  the  two 
topics  "  The  Scriptures  "  and  "God,"  and  that  the  first  report 
from  the  great  Committee  was  on  "  the  Trinity  "  only. 

This  construction  receives  further  support  from  other  circum- 
stances. We  hear  nothing  of  "Committees,"  but  only  of  a  "  Com- 
mittee "  on  the  Confession  between  the  dates  May  9,  when  the 
"  two  Committees  "  were  "  put  into  one,"  and  July  16,  when  the 
three  great  Committees  were  charged  with  the  Confession,  while 
afterwards  this  is  no  longer  so — as,  e.g.,  on  August  20  we  read  of 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       239 

"  the  Committees  for  the  Confession  of  Faitli."     We  hear  no  more 
of  reports  from  Dr.  Temple  on  the  Confession  after  those  on  the 
"  Scriptures  "  of  July  7  and  on  "  God  "  of  July  18.     At  the  very 
next  session — July  23 — we  read  rather:    "  Report  made  from  the 
Committee    of    the   Article  of   the  Trinity,"    and  afterwards,    on 
August  29  :    "  Report  from  the  first  Committee  concerning  God's 
decrees;"   "  Report  made  by  the  second  Committee  of  Christ  the 
Mediator;"    "Debate  on   the  report  of    the   first   Committee  of 
God's  decree;"    on  September  3,    "  Report  from   the  first  Com- 
mittee about  adding  the  word  '  absolutely  ;'  "   "  Debate  about  the 
2d    Committee's   report   of   Christ   the    Mediator,"    and   so   on.* 
This  mode  of  reference  varied  only  to  such  forms  as  the  following. 
On    September   8,     "  Dr.    Gouge   offered   a   report    of    an    addi- 
tion, though  the  Committee  was  not  a  full  number,  but  7  " — D'-. 
Gouge  being  a  member  of  the  First  Committee,   and  possibly  at 
this  time  its  chairman. f     On  September  9,    "  Dr.  Stanton  made 
report  additional   of    Christ   the  Mediator.:j:     Mr.  Prophet  made 
report  of  Effectual  Calling  "§ — Dr.  Stanton  having  been  from  the 
first  chairman  of  the  Second  Committee  and  Mr.  Prophet  being  a 
member  of  the  Third,  the  several  Committees  to  which  these  topics 
had  been  assigned  on  July  16.     A  note  in  the   proceedings   for 
November  18  (sess.  537)  gives  the  whole  state  of    the  case  very 
clearly  :    "  Dr.   Gouge   [made]    report  from    First    Committee   of 
Creation.     Mr.  Whitakers  from  the  Second  Committee,  of  the  Fall 
of  Man,  of  Sin,   and  the  Punishment  thereof.     The  Third  Com- 
mittee made  no  report."     In  the  presence  of  such  clear  declara- 
tions, supported  by  a  number  of  incidental  references  accordant  with 
them  (such  as  have  been  set  down  in  the  margin),  we  need  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  the  several  heads  of  the  Confession  were  obvi- 
ously reported  directly  to  the  Assembly  by  the  three  great   Com- 

*  Reports  from  First  Committee,  Minutes,  pp.  129,  130,  150,  151,  1G4,  166,  167, 
171,  192.  Reports  from  Second  Committee,  Minutes,  pp.  130,  131,  150,  161,  163, 
166,  167.     Ileports  form  Third  Committee,  Minutes,  pp.  165,  173. 

t  The  detailed  liistorv  of  the  large  Committees  is  obscure:  see  Mitchell,  Baird 
Lectures,  pp.  148  sq.  Dr.  Burgess  was  the  first  chairman  of  the  First  Committee, 
but  he  had  in  the  meanwhile  been  in  dis^grace  (p.  181)  and  during  his  suspension 
a  new  chairman  must  needs  have  lieen  chosen.  Cf.  January  29,  164f),  "Mr.  Cole- 
man made  report  of  Christian  Liberty  "  (cf.  p.  104),  Mr.  Coleman  being  also  a  mem- 
ber of  the  first  committee  :  March  5,  "  Report  of  Dr.  Gouge  about  tlie  Church." 

:j:  Cf.  November  12,  "  Dr.  Stanton  [made]  report  from  second  Committee  ;"  De- 
cember 5  :  "  Report  from  Dr.  Stanton  of  the  Sacraments  in  general  "  (cf.  p.  164)  ; 
but  December  29,  "  Mr,  Calamy  made  report  of  Baptism." 

?,  Cf.  November  20  :  '*  Mr.  Prophet  brought  in  a  report  from  the  Third  Commit- 
tee," etc.;  March  5,  1046  :  "  ^Ir.  Prophet  made  report  of  Religion  and  Worsl)ip," 
etc.  ;  but  December  2,  1645:  "  Report  from  Mr.  Cheynell  of  Justification'' — Mr. 
Clieyaell  being  also  a  member  of  the  Third  Committee;  January  1,  1616:  ''Dr. 
Wincop  made  report  from  the  Third  Committee  about  the  Law  of  God." 


240  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIET\. 

mittees,  even  though  there  remain  a  few  instances  where  a  refer- 
ence occurs  not  easily  explicable. 

The  most  striking  of  these  are  those  instances  in  which  we  read 
of  a  topic  of  the  Confession  being  reported  by  a  member  who  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  a  member  of  the  great  Committee  to  which 
this  topic  was  assigned.  On  one  occasion,  for  example,  Dr.  Gouge 
is  spoken  of  as  reporting  on  a  topic  not  belonging  to  the  First,  but 
to  the  Second  Committee  :  December  15,  1645,  "  Dr.  Gouge  made 
report  about  Free  Will."  Dr.  Gouge  may  have  been  acting  here, 
however,  as  representing  not  the  original  Committee  which 
reported  this  subject  to  the  Assembly,  but  a  special  Committee  to 
which  it  or  some  part  of  it  had  been  recommitted.  Color  is  lent 
to  this  suggestion  by  three  facts.  First,  the  recom- 

mitment of  special  points  to  special  Committees  was  not  uncom- 
mon with  the  Assembly  ;  instances  may  be  noted  on  pp.  183, 
184,    187,   208,  217-18-19    of    the    Minutes.  Sec- 

ondly, the  note  here  is  made  in  immediate  conjunction  with 
a  case  of  recommitment.  The  Minutes  proceed:  "  Mr.  Arrow- 
smith  made  report  of  that  committed  concerning  the  Sacra- 
ments." The  Sacraments  constituted  a  topic  belonging  to  the 
Second  Committee  indeed,  of  which  Mr.  Arrowsmith  was  a  mem- 
ber, and  so  this  case  may  be  only  partially  parallel.  More 
clearly  similar  is  the  instance  of  November  7,  when  we  read  : 
"  Eeport  made  by  Mr.  Reynolds  about  Reprobation  " — evidently 
in  pursuance  of  the  order  of  November  6 :  "  The  paragraph 
concerning  Reprobation  referred  to  the  Committee  to  make  re- 
port to-morrow  morning."  Mr.  Reynolds  was  not,  however,  a 
member  of  the  First  Committee  to  which  this  topic  belonged, 
but  of  the  Second  :*  and  thus  this  would  seem  to  be  a  case 
of  reference  to  a  special  Committee.  The  matter  is  plainer 
still  in  another  instance.  AVe  read  in  the  Minutes  for  March  10, 
1646 :  "  Mr.  Seaman  made  report  of  Christian  Liberty  and 
Liberty  of  Conscience  " — a  topic  belonging  to  the  First  Committee 
while  Mr.  Seaman  was  a  member  of  the  Second.  The  original 
report  on  Christian  Liberty,  however,  was  made  on  January  29, 
and  not  by  Mr.  Seaman  but  by  Mr.  Coleman — a  member  of  the  First 
Committee,     The  subject  was  debated  on  that  day,  and  again  on 

*  Dr.  Reynolds  was,  however,  a  member  of  the  committee  of  September  4,  1614, 
and  also  of  that  of  May  12,  1645  :  and  it  is,  of  course,  conceivable  that  it  was  to 
this  fundamental  committee  that  the  topic  was  recommitted.  The  case  would  not 
be  so  simple  in  the  instances  of  Mr.  Gouge  and  Mr.  Arrowsmith  ;  they  were  both 
members  of  the  committee  of  August  20,  1644,  but  not  of  that  of  May  13 — which  in 
our  view  had  been  substituted  for  it.  In  Mr.  Seaman's  case,  just  to  be  mentioned, 
it  is  clear  that  it  was  to  a  special  committee  that  the  recommitment  was  made,  and 
he  was  moreover  not  a  member  of  any  of  the  committees  of  August  20,  September 
4,  1644,  May  12,  1645. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      241 

February  10,  12,  16,  when  it  was  resolved:  "  That  this  whole 
head  of  Christian  Liberty  shall  be  recommitted;"  and  farther, 
* '  This  shall  be  recommitted  to  a  select  Committee  ' '  —  whose 
members  are  then  named  with  Mr.  Seaman  at  their  head  (p.  187). 
It  is,  of  course,  from  this  Committee  that  Mr.  Seaman  reported  on 
March  10.  It  should,  however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  cannot  im- 
plicitly trust  the  lists  of  names  given  in  the  schedule  which  Dr. 
Mitchell  prints  of  the  members  of  the  three  great  Committees  at  the 
date'nearest  to  the  time  when  the  Assembly  was  busied  with  the 
Confession.  For  example,  we  read  in  the  minutes  of  January  29, 
16-46:  "  Mr.  Dury  made  report  from  the  Second  Committee  of 
Church  Offices  and  Censures."  But  the  name  of  Mr.  Dury  does 
not  occur  on  the  roll  of  the  members  of  the  Second  Committee, 
nor  indeed  on  any  of  the  three  rolls.  A  similar  instance  is  found 
in  this  same  note  of  January  29  :  "  Mr.  Newcomen,  Mr.  Dury,  Mr. 
Delmy,  Dr.  Temple,  Dr.  Gouge,  added  to  the  Committee  for 
report  about  the  Law  ;  to  report  to-morrow  morning."  The  refer- 
ence is  not  to  the  original  Third  Committee,  which  had  reported  the 
chapter  on  the  Law  at  least  as  early  as  January  7,  but  to  a  special 
Committee  appointed  January  12  to  consider  the  propositions 
under  debate  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  terms  "  ceremonial  " 
and  "  judicial."  Of  the  names  given  in  this  additional  list,  two 
— Messrs.  Dury  and  Delmy — have  no  place  in  Dr.  Mitchell's  lists 
of  the  three  Committees.  Thirdly,  it  may  be  added  that 

it  does  not  appear  likely  that  Dr.  Gouge's  report  on  December  15, 
1645,  represents  the  first  report  to  the  Assembly  on  the  topic  of  Free 
Will.  A  month  before  (on  November  18)  it  had  been  represented 
to  the  Assembly  that  the  Second  Committee  had  finished  all  the 
heads  of  the  Confession  that  had  been  committed  to  it ;  and  this 
representation  was  made  the  occasion  of  a  new  distribution  of 
heads  to  the  three  Committees.  In  the  interval,  before  December 
15,  topics  from  this  second  distribution  had  been  reported  from 
the  Second  Committee  (e.y.,  December  1  on  the  Lord's  Supper  ; 
December  5,  "Of  the  Sacraments  in  general").  It  does  not 
seem  likely  that  these  would  be  reported  before  report  had  been 
made  ol  material  lying  ready  for  report  before  these  topics  were 
undertaken. 

In  the  light  of  the  facts,  therefore,  it  seems  certain  that  the  sev- 
eral heads  of  the  Confession  were  reported  immediately  from  the 
three  great  Committees  to  the  Assembly,  and  that  therefore  there 
was  no  Committee  for  further  digesting  their  material  inter- 
mediating between  them  and  the  Assembly.  It  is  not  safe  to  differ 
on  such  a  matter  from  Prof.  Mitchell,  but,  on  the  whole,  it  appears 
to  us  likely  also  that  the  small  Committee  appointed  on  the  12th 


242  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

May,  1645,  was  substituted  for  tlie  earlier  Committee  or  Commit- 
tees (of  August  20-September  4,  1644,  and  perhaps  again  in  the 
ensuing  winter),  and  that  the  mode  of  procedure  was  that  the 
small  Committee  of  May  12,  1645 — consisting  of  seven,  a  quorum 
of  which  was  five — first  drew  up  the  heads  of  the  Confession  with 
the  aid  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  :  and  that 
these  were  then  distributed  by  the  Assembly  among  the  three  great 
Committees  for  thorough  digesting :  whence  they  came  back 
finally  to  theAssembly  for  discussion  and  ordering. 

The  first  two  of  these  "  heads  "  had,  to  be  sure,  according  to  our 
supposition,  already  been  reported  to  the  Assembly  by  the  small 
Committee,  before  it  had  been  determined  to  distribute  the  heads 
between  the  three  great  Committees.  In  the  minutes  of  the  session 
for  Friday,  July  4,  1645,  we  read:  "Debate  about  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  That  the  sub-Committee  for  the  Confession  of 
Faith  shall  make  report  to  the  Assembly  on  Monday  morning  of 
Avhat  is  in  their  hands  concerning  God  and  concerning  the  Scrip- 
tures." Accordingly  on  Monday,  July  7,  we  read  :  "  Dr.  Temple 
made  report  of  that  part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  touching  the 
Scriptures.  It  was  read,  debated."  We  hear  no  more  of  the 
report  on  the  head  "  God,"  to  be  sure,  until  July  18 — before  which 
date  the  distribution  to  the  great  Committees  had  been  made.  But 
what  we  read  there  is  not  that  Dr.  Temple  made  report  on  this 
topic,  but:  "  Report  concerning  God,  by  Dr.  Temple,  read  and 
debated,"  while  subsequently  we  read  (July  23)  :  "  Report  made 
Irom  the  Committee  of  the  article  of  the  Trinity."'  "Whatever 
may  be  the  right  explanation  of  these  phrases,  the  reports  of  the 
subsequent  heads  of  the  Confession  were  not  made  by  Dr.  Temple, 
but  as  we  have  seen  from  the  First,  Second  or  Third  Committee,  or 
some  one  of  their  representatives.  This  series  begins,  if  not  on 
July  23,  at  least  on  August  29,  with  a  notice  of  a  report  from  the 
First  Committee  on  God's  decrees  and  from  the  Second  Committee 
on  Christ  the  Mediator.  Thereafter  the  heads  were  reported  one 
by  one  from  the  several  Committees  to  which  their  digesting  had 
been  from  time  to  time  committed.* 

The  consideration  given  in  the  Assembly  itself  to  the  several 
heads  was  very  careful  and  the  scrutiny  of  every  clause  and  word 
searching.  Recommitments,  ordinarily  at  least  to  special  Com- 
mittees, were  frequent :  final  dissent  on  the  part  of  individuals  was 
sometimes  entered.  In  a  word,  time,  pains  and  scrupulous  care 
were  not  spared  for  perfecting  the  instrument.     Thus  the  work 

*  There  were  four  distributions — July  16,  1645,  November  18,  1645,  February  23, 
1646 — to  which  should  be  added  the  supplementary  distribution  of  August  19,  1646. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      24.> 

went  slowly  on,  until  near  the  middle  of  16J:6,  at  which  time, 
though  the  work  was  not  jet  completed,  the  attention  of  the 
Assembly  was  withdrawn  by  the  Parliament  to  other  matters. 
During  the  course  of  these  long-continued  and  searching  debates, 
it  was  inevitable  that  many  alterations  should  be  entered  in  the 
drafts  of  the  several  heads  as  they  were  first  laid  before  the 
Assembly.  It  was  felt  by  the  Assembly  from  the  first  that  pro- 
vision should  be  made  to  have  the  text  and  alterations  properly 
adjusted.  As  early  as  July  8,  16i5,  therefore,  we  find  this 
order  :  "  That  Mr.  Reynolds,  Mr.  Herle,  Mr.  Newcomen  be  desired 
to  take  care  of  the  wording  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  it  is 
voted  in  the  Assembly  from  time  to  time,  and  to  report  to  the 
Assembly  when  they  think  fit  there  should  be  any  alteration  in 
the  words.  They  are  first  to  consult  with  the  Commissioners  from 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  or  one  of  them,  before  they  report  to  the 
Assembly."  Of  this  Committee  we  hear  nothing  more:  it  doubt- 
less did  the  work  committed  to  it  and  saw  to  it  that  the  amend- 
ments made  were  fitted  properly  into  their  places  and  that  all  went 
smoothly.  As  the  work  advanced,  another  Committee  of  similar 
but  apparently  somewhat  enlarged  powers  was  appointed.  This 
was  done  on  December  8,  1645  :  "  Ordered — Mr.  Tuckney,  Mr. 
Reynolds,  Mr.  Newcomen,  Mr.  Whitakers,  a  Committee  to  review 
the  Confession  of  Faith  as  it  is  finished  in  the  Assembly." 
Apparently  it  was  not  contemplated  that  reports  should  be  made 
from  this  Committee  in  the  meantime  ;  but  rather  that  it  should 
quietly  prepare  matter  for  the  further  consideration  of  the  Assem- 
bly in  a  final  review  of  its  work.  At  all  events,  after  the  stress 
of  interruption  was  over  and  the  Confession  was  completed  (at 
least  substantially),  we  find  this  Committee  reporting  (June  17, 
1646).  The  note  runs:  "  Report  was  made  from  the  Committee 
about  '  the  perfecting  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  '  ' ' — and  at  once 
it  is  "  Ordered — That  Mr.  Arrowsmith  be  added  to  the  Committee 
for  [perfecting]  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.*  Upon  a  debate 
about  the  '  reading  of  the  Report  again,'  it  was  Resolved  upon  the 
Q.,  '  Not  to  be  read  again  entire  but  in  parts.'  It  was  debated, 
and  the  Assembly  began  with  the  Scriptures  ;  and  part  of  that 
head  was  ordered."  From  this  it  would  seem  that  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  "  the  perfecting  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  '* 
consisted  of  the  presentation  of  a  perfected  copy  ;  that  tlds  was 
read  first  entire  ;  and  then  ordered  to  be  again  read  in  parts.  Oa 
June  19,  1646,  it  is  further  ordered,  "  That  the  Committee  for 
wording  and  methodizing  the  Confession  of  Faith  shall  have 
liberty,  as  they  see  things  imperfect,  to  complete  them  ;  and  to 
make  report  unto  the  Assembly." 

*  Mr.  Cawdry  -was  added  also,  Septem1)?r  1,  1616. 


244  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Under  the  guidance  of  this  Committee  the  Assembly  thus  went 
again  over  the  whole  Confession.  This  work  was  not  done  per- 
functorily.* It  was  begun  on  June  17,  1646:  immediately  after 
determining,  as  has  been  already  mentioned,  to  review  the  Con- 
fession in  parts,  it  is  noted:  "  The  Assembly  began  with  the 
Scriptures;  and  part  of  that  head  was  ordered.  Ordered — To 
proceed  in  the  debate  where  we  left."  Accordingly  in  the 
Minutes  of  the  next  day  (June  18)  we  read  :  "  The  Assembly 
proceeded  in  the  debate  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  concerning 
*  the  Scriptures;'  and  upon  debate  the  whole  head  concerning  the 
Scriptures  was  ordered  ;  and  it  is  as  followeth The  Assem- 
bly proceeded  in  the  debate  of  the  Article  concerning  '  God  and 
the  Holy  Trinity ; '   and  upon  debate  that  head  also  was  ordered ; 

and  it  is  as  followeth The  Assembly  proceeded  in  debate 

of  the  Article  '  Of  God's  Eternal  Decree,'  and  upon  debate  part  of 
it  was  ordered.  Upon  debate  about  the  last  clause  of  it,  con- 
cerning the  handling  of  this  doctrine,  it  was  Resolved  upon  the 
Q.,  To  refer  this  until  to-morrow  morning."  The  next  day  accord- 
ingly :  ' '  The  Assembly  proceeded  in  the  debate  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  ;    and  upon  debate,  that  head  '  of  God's  Eternal  Decree  ' 

was  ordered  and  is  as  followeth "     Similarly  chapters  iv 

and  V  were  passed  on  the  same  day  ;  part  of  chap,  vi  on  June 
22,  and  the  remainder  of  chap,  vi,  and  chaps  vii  and  viii  on  June 
25.  Chap,  ix,  "  of  Free  Will,"  gave  apparently  more  trouble. 
We  read  in  the  minutes  of  June  29  :  "  Eeport  was  made  by  Mr. 
Tuckney  '  of  Free  Will.'  It  was  read,  and  also  some  additional 
to  the  Article  '  of  the  Fall  of  Man.'  The  additionais  were 
debated  and  ordered  to  be  added.  The  Assembly  debated  on 
Eeport  '  of  Free  Will ; '  and  upon  debate  of  the  first  branch  of 
it  concerning  '  the  natural  liberty  of  the  AVill,'  it  was  Resolved 
upon  the  Q.,  To  be  recommitted."  In  the  minutes  of  the  next 
day  (June  30)  accordingly  we  read  :  "  Report  was  made  from  the 
Committee  of  the  proposition  concerning  Free  Will  recommitted. 
It  was  read  and  debated,  and  the  whole  Article  assented  to.     It  is 

:as  followeth "     On  the  same  day  chap,  x  was  passed  upon. 

After  this,  work  on  the  Confession  was  intermitted  for  nearly  a 
month,  and  was  not  resumed  until  a  message  was  received  from 
Parliament  desiring  the  early  completion  of  the  Confession  (July 
•22). t     On  July  23  chaps,  xi  and  xii   were  passed  :    and  on  the 

*  Compare  Baillie's  account  of  the  care  expended  on  this  review,  vol.  ii,  400-403  : 
the  passages  are  extracted  below,  p.  258. 

f  This  order  was  "  due  to  a  letter  from  the  Assembly  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  of 
the  18th  of  June,  read  in  the  Lords'  on  the  9th  of  July  (L.  /.,  viii,  425  ;  C.  J., 
iv,  621)"— Shaw,  I,  360.  A  letter  from  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  delivered  also 
to  the  Assembly,  July  7. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      245 

next  day,  July  24,  the  interrupted  work  of  framing  the  first  draft 
of  the  Confession  was  also  resumed,  the  Second  Committee  bring- 
ing in  its  reports  ou  chaps,  xviii  and  xxxii.    The  time  of  the  Assem- 
bly was  thereafter  largely  absorbed  in  framing  the  remainder  of 
the  first  draft  :  and  it  is  not  nutil  September  14  that  we  meet  with 
the  next  note  bearing  on  the  review  :  on  that  date  chap,  xvii  was 
passed  upon  in  its  perfected  form,  and  on  September  15  chap,  xviii, 
while  on  this  latter  date  also:  "  Report  was  made  from  the  Com- 
mittee tor  perfecting  the  Confession  of  Faith  '  of  the  Law.'     It 
was  read  and  debated,  and  upon  debate  much  of  it  was  assented 
to,  the  rest  referred  to  the  Committee.' '     On  September  16,  chaps, 
xiii  and  xiv  were  passed  upon  ;  on  the  17th  the  rest  of  chap,  xix  ; 
on  September  18,   chap.  xv.     On  September  21,   chap,  xvi  was 
passed  ;   an  addition  was  proposed  to  it  on  the  22d  by  Mr.  Prophet, 
concerning  which  the  Assembly — '^Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  Not  to 
take  this  paper  now  read  into  debate  ;"  nevertheless  on  September 
23  its  consideration  was  pressed  on  the  attention  of  the  Assembly 
again,  whereupon  it  was  ''Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  This  proposition 
shall  not  be  added."     On  the  same  day  chap,  xiii,  on  Sanctifica- 
tion,  was  taken  up  renewedly  and  certain  alterations  proposed  by 
a  Committee  appointed  for  the  purpose  were  entered  into  it.     The 
same  afternoon  Mr.  Whitaker  sought  to  secure  a  similar  review 
of  a  clause  in  chap,  iii,  but  unsuccessfully. 

Thus  the  framing  of  the  first  draft  of  the  latter  portion  of  the 
Confession  and  the  perfecting  of  that  portion  of  it  already  drawn 
up  went  on  side  by  side.  The  House  of  Commons  was  meanwhile 
still  pressing  for  its  completion  and  in  response  to  an  order  re- 
ceived September  18,*  chaps,  xvi-xix  were  completed  and  passed 
upon  September  25,  and  the  first  nineteen  chapters  sent  up  to  Par- 
liament. Chaps.  XX  and  xxi  were  passed  October  30  ;  chap,  xxii, 
November  6  ;  chap,  xxiii,  November  9  ;  xxvii  and  xxviii,  Novem- 
ber 10  ;  xxix,  November  16  ;  xxv,  November  17  ;  xxvi,  Novem- 
ber 20  ;  XXX,  xxxi,  xxxii  and  xxxiii,  November  26.  On  Novem- 
ber 26,  1646,  the  following  note  was  spread  on  the  minutes  : 
"  The  Confession  of  Faith  was  finished  this  day,  and  by  order  of 
the  Assembly  the  Prolocutor  gave  thanks,  in  the  name  of  the 
Assembly,  to  the  Committee  that  had  taken  so  good  [or  "great "] 
pains  in  the  perfecting  of  the  Confession  of  Faith." 

Even  this  exhibition  of  the  work  done  in  bringing  the  Confes- 
sion to  its  present  form  is  not,  however,  a  complete  account  of  the 
pains  expended  on  it.  On  September  18,  1646,  there  seems  to 
have  been  made  an  unsuccessful  effort  to  establish  yet  another 

*The  order  was  maile  on  September  16  (C.  /.,  IV,  670;  Shaw,  I,  361),  and 
received  on  September  18  (Minutes,  235). 


24(3  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Committee  for  the  reviewing  of  the  whole  Confession,  after  this 
second  passage  of  it  through  the  Assembly.  We  read:  "  Upon 
a  motion  to  appoint  a  Committee  to  consider  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  what  errors  are  not  obviated  in  it,  and  to  that  end  that  there 
be  a  review  of  the  Articles  of  England  and  Ireland,  it  was  Re- 
solved upon  the  Q.,  There  shall  be  no  Committee  to  consider  of 
the  reviewing  of  the  Articles  what  errors  are  not  obviated  in 
them."  The  meaning  of  this  is  perhaps  elucidated  by  the  form 
in  which  it  stands  in  the  other  draft  of  the  Minutes,  lapping  here 
with  the  printed  copy  and  called  Fascicle  iii  by  the  editors:  "  A 
new  Committee  to  consider  of  all  the  errors  unobviated  in  several 
Confessions  of  England,  Ireland  and  Scotland,  to  give  in  the  cata- 
logue of  these  errors  to  the  Cora«iittee  for  the  wording.  R. — No 
Committee  to  consider  of  the  reviewino-  Articles  what  errors  are 
not  obviated  in  them."  That  is  to  say,  apparently,  what  was 
proposed  was  a  Committee  to  see  that  all  that  was  erroneous  in 
earlier  Confessions  had  been  fitly  dealt  with  in  the  new  Confes- 
sion :  the  anxiety  seems  to  have  been  that  no  erroneous  expres- 
sions, however  slight  and  intrenched  in  the  earlier  Confessions, 
should  escape  correction  in  this  new  one. 

Though  this  effort  failed,  there  was,  however,  a  new  reviewing 
made  of  the  text  of  the  Confession  that  bore  fruit  for  its  perfecting. 
This  was  accomplished  in  the  process  of  its  transcription.  Over 
this  transcription  Mr,  Burgess  had  the  oversight.  He  made  report 
September  21,  IG-IG,  "  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  transcribed,  so 
much  of  it  as  the  Assembly  had  perfected.  It  was  read,  and  upon 
debate  it  was  Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  '  The  several  heads  ot  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  shall  be  called  by  the  name  of  Chapters.'  Resolved 
upon  the  Q.,  That  the  several  sections  be  distinguished  by  figures 
■only."  Thus  was  inaugurated  what  was  really  a  second  revision  of 
the  Confession — a  passage  of  it  through  the  Assembly  for  the  third 
time.  By  September  25,  as  we  have  seen,  nineteen  chapters  had 
passed  through  this  third  scrutiny,  and  were  ordered  sent  up  to  the 
Parliament.  Subsequently  to  that  we  find  repeated  instances  in 
which  Dr.  Burgess  moves  certain  alterations  or  additions  to  the 
already  completed  chapters — which  do  or  do  not  commend  them- 
selves to  the  Assembly:  e.g.,  on  November  20  he  moves  certain 
additions  to  chap,  xxi,  which  had  been  passed  on  October  30  ;  on 
November  23,  to  chap,  xxii,  which  had  been  passed  on  November 
6  ;  and  an  addition  was  made  to  chap,  xxi  on  that  same 
day,  doubtless  on  his  motion.  This  process  of  improvement 
continues  even  after  the  entr}^  made  on  November  26,  celebra- 
ting the  completion  of  the  Confession,  i.  e.,  during  the  whole 
process  of    its  official  transcription.     Thus    on  November  27   we 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      247 

read  :  "  Dr.  Burgess  moved  for  some  alterations  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  in  some  words,  which  were  assented  to." 
And  again  on  December  1,  "  Upon  a  motion  for  an  alteration 
in  the  chapter  of  Censures  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  it  was 
Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  There  shall  be  no  alteration."  Indeed,  the 
onerousness  of  Dr.  Burgess'  work  of  overseeing  the  transcription 
was  recognized  at  this  session  by  the  order  :  "  That  the  brethren 
that  drew  up  the  Confession  of  Faith  " — that  is,  as  we  should  con- 
jecture, either  the  Committee  appointed  May  12,  1645,  to  frame 
the  first  draft— Messrs.  Gataker,  Harris,  Temple,  Burgess,  Rey- 
nolds, Hoyle,  Herle, — or  else  the  perfecting  Committee — Messrs. 
Tuckney,  Reynolds,  Newcomen,  Whitaker,  Arrowsmith  and  Caw- 
dry — appointed  December  8,  1645,  and  augmented  January  17, 
1646,  and  September  1,  1646 — "  do  assist  Dr.  Burgess  in  reading 
over  the  Confession  of  Faith  with  one  of  the  scribes."  On 
December  3  a  number  of  changes  in  chaps,  xix,  xxi,  xxii.  xxix, 
XXX i  were  proposed  by  Dr.  Burgess,  and  either  accepted  or 
rejected,  and  the  Committee  was  required  further  "  to  consider  of 
that  which  is  propounded  concerning  the  chapter  of  the  Civil  Magis- 
trate." Other  changes  Avere  debated  on  December  4,  and  Dr. 
Burgess'  final  report  was  made,  whereupon  it  was  '■^Ordered — 
That  thanks  be  returned  to  the  Assessor,  Dr.  B urges,  for  his  great 
pains  in  transcribing  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  was  done  by  the 
Prolocutor.  Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  This  "  [z'.e.,  the  transcribed  and 
finally  adjusted  copy  of  the  Confession  of  Faith]  "  shall  be  pre- 
sented to  both  Houses  of  Parliament  by  the  whole  Assembly.  The 
Confession  of  Faith  as  it  was  presented  is  as  foUoweth  .  .  .  ."  Here 
we  reach  the  really  final  act  in  the  Assembly's  preparation  of  the 
text  of  the  Confession.  Nothing  remained  now  but  the  printing 
of  it,  and  on  receiving  from  Parliament  an  order  to  that  effect,  it 
was  (December  10)  ^'■Ordered — That  the  Scribes  take  care  of  the 
exact  printing  of  the  Confession  of  Faith." 

The  work  of  preparing  proof-texts  for  the  Confession  was 
undertaken  somewhat  reluctantly  by  the  Assembly,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  an  order  from  the  House  of  Commons  of  October  9, 
1646,  and  reported  in  the  Assembly  on  October  12.  It  was  felt 
that  the  demand  for  proof-texts  was  only  an  expedient  of  ' '  the 
retarding  party  "  in  Parliament  (as  Baillie  calls  it)  to  delay  the 
completion  of  the  business  :  and  it  was  feared  that  the  attempt  to 
add  the  texts  would  (as  Baillie  expressed  it)  "  prove  a  very  loner 
business,  if  not  dexterouslie  managed,"  though,  no  doubt,  it  would 
be  "  for  the  advantage  and  strength  of  the  work."*  A  Com- 
mittee was,  however,  at  once  appointed  to  advise  the  Assembly 

*  Baillie,  Letters,  II,  403,  III,  2.     See  the  text  below,  pp.  253,  259. 


248  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

"  how  obedience  may  be  yielded  to  this  order,"  and  their  report, 
adopted  October  13,  set  forth  that  to  append  full  proofs  to  so 
large  a  Confession  would  require  a  volume,  and  could  scarcely  be 
necessary,  inasmuch  as  what  was  set  forth  in  the  Confession  was 
for  its  substance  "  received  truths  among  all  churches,"  and 
the  only  question  about  it  concerned  ' '  the  manner  of  expression  or 
the  fitness  to  have  it  put  in  the  Confession."  What  the  Assembly 
explicitly  asked,  however,  was  only  time,  not  absolute  reprieve 
for  the  task,*  Parliament  was  inexorable,  and  the  work  was  fairly 
begunon  January  6,  1647  (Wednesday).  We  read:  '■'■  Ordered — That 
Mr.  Wilson,  Air.  Byfield,  Mr.  Gower,  be  a  Committee  to  prepare 
Scriptures  for  the  Confession  of  Faith."  On  the  very  next  day  the 
Scriptures  for  the  first  chapter  were  reported,  and  those  for  the 
first  paragraph  were  debated.  The  work  was  continued  steadily 
thereafter.  The  proof-texts  of  the  first  chapter  were  completed 
on  January  15  :  and  meanwliile  those  for  the  other  chapters  were 
being  reported — those  for  chap,  ii  having  been  brought  in  on  Janu- 
ary 8,  and  for  chap,  iii  on  January  13.  On  Friday,  March  5,  1647, 
the  texts  for  the  final  chapters  were  reported,  and  the  Assembly 
"  Ordered — That  thanks  be  returned  to  the  Committee  for  the 
Scriptures,  for  their  great  pains  and  diligence  in  that  business  ; 
which  was  accordingly  done  by  the  Prolocutor.  Ordered — That 
Mr.  Burges,  Dr.  Smith,  Mr.  Calamy,  Mr.  Palmer,  Mr.  Seaman, 
Mr.  Strickland,  Mr.  Spurstow,  Mr.  Case,  Mr.  Scudder,  and  Dr. 
Hoyle,  or  any  three  of  them,  shall  be  a  Committee  to  join  with 
the  Committee  for  the  Scriptures,  to  review  the  Scriptures.  They 
are  to  meet  on  Thursday  next  in  the  afternoon.  The  care  of  this 
Committee  is  referred  to  Mr.  Scudder. "  These  resolutions  mark 
the  completion  of  the  proof-texts,  however,  only  in  the  Com- 
mittee. At  this  time  the  Assembly's  consideration  of  them  had 
reached  no  further  than  the  Twentieth  chapter.  It  was  not  until 
April  5,  1647,  that  the  work  was  completed  by  the  Assembly. 
On  that  date  the  note  is  entered  in  the  Minutes  :  "  The  Confes- 
sion was  finished." 

It  was  not  even  then  "  finished,"  however,  except  in  first 
draft  ;  and  it  was  ordered  that  the  report  of  the  reviewing 
Committee  should  now  go  through  the  three  large  Committees, 
and  so  come  to  the  Assembly — the  work  to  be  begun  on  the  next 
day.  There  was  an  eflort  made  at  the  same  time  to  have  some 
explanatory  declaration  added  with  reference  to  the  proper  use  of 
the  proof-texts,  but  this  was  unsuccessful.  The  action  in  full  was 
as  follows:    "  Upon  a  motion  by  Mr.  Seaman  that  something  be 

*  The  answer  of  the  Assembly  to  the  reqiiisition  is  printed  by  Dr.  Mitchell  in  the 
Baird  Lectures,  p.  377  :  the  rejoinder  of  the  House  in  The  Minutes,  p.  295. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      24^ 

annexed  by  way  of  caution  to  show  bow  the   proofs  are  to   be 
applied,  it  was  Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  There  shall  be  no  further 
debate  about  cautions  to  be  added  about  the  proofs  of  Scripture. 
Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  That  the  Review  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
be  considered  by  the  three  Committees  of   the   Assembly.     Or- 
dered—That  the  Committees  appointed  for  the   Review  of    the 
Confession  make  report  to-morrow  morning  what  they  have  done 
about  it."     It  would  seem  that  it  was  impracticable  for  the  three 
Committees  to  report   the  next  day,  however,  and  the  expedient 
appears  to  have  been  adopted— in  this  approximating  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  text  of  Ihe  Confession  itself  was  first  taken  up— 
of  having  the  Committee  of  Review  report  the  first  portion  of  the 
texts  directly  to  the  Assembly,  while  the  remainder  should  come  to 
it  only  through  the   large    Committees.     This   is    at  least  what 
appears  to  be  implied  by  the  entry  for  April  6  :   "  Mr.  Scudder 
made  report  of  the  Review  of   the   proofs  ot    the  Confession  of 
Faith    for  the    seven   first   chapters    and   part   of    the  8th ;    and 
upon  debate  of  it,  it  was  assented  to  as  the  proofs  are  entered  in 
the  margin  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.      Ordered— That  the  rest 
of   the    8th   chapter,   and   chapt  9th  to  the   17th  be  referred  to 
the  First  Committee  to  review  ;  and  from  chapter  8th  to  the  25th 
to   the    Second  Committee,  and  from  chapter  26th  to  the  end  of 
the  Confession   to   the   Third    Committee."     On    the   succeeding 
days,  April  7,  8,  9,  12,  13,  the  reports  of  these  Committees  for 
the  several  sections  were  brought  in  and  the  proof- texts  passed  by 
the  Assembly.     On  the  15th  April  it  was  '^  Ordered— That   Mr. 
Wilson,  Mr.  Gower,  and  Ur.  Wallis  do  draw  up,  in  the  margin  of 
two  books  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the   Scriptures,  to  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Parliament."     An  order  having  been  received  from 
Parlian\ent  to  send  up  the  texts  (April  22),  this  was  done  on  April 
26,  16^7,  and  they  were  presented  to  both  Houses  on  April  29.  * 

Thus  the  Confession  of  Faith  passed  in  its  completed  form  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  Assembly,  and  the  history  of  the  attempt  to 
create  a  common  Confession  of  Faith  for  Great  Britain  properly 
closes.  All  the  world  knows  the  subsequent  fortunes  of  the 
product  of  such  long-continued  labors.  The  text  of  the  first 
nineteen  chapters,  it  w'U  be  remembered,  was  sent  up  prelimi- 
narily to  the  two  Ilouses  of  Parliament :  they  were  presented 
to  the  House  of  Commons  September  25,  16^:6,  and  to  the  House 
of  Lords,  October  1.  On  December  4  the. completed  text  went  to 
the    Commons,    and    on   the    7th    of    that   month    to   the    Lords. 

*For  a  history  of  the  proof-texts  of  the  Confession,  see  Dr.  Samuel  T.  Lowrie's 
article  in  The  Presbyterian  Review,  July,  1888  (ix,  445  sq.),  and  his  reports  iu  the 
Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  for  1691  (p.  129  sq.),  and  1894  (p.  157  sq.),  or 
in  the  Digest  of  1898  (p.  21  sq.). 


250  TUE  FRESBTTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Already  by  November  4,  1646,  the  first  nineteen  cliapters  liad 
passed  tlie  House  of  Lords  in  tlie  exact  form  in  wliicli  tliej  bad 
been  sent  up  by  the  Assembly :  the  remainder  was  passed  by 
them  February  16,  1647.  In  the  Commons,  however,  the  matter 
dragged.  Tlie  first  nineteen  chapters  were  passed  perfunctorily  on 
October  6,  1646.  and  taken  up  for  debate  in  the  grand  Committee 
on  October  9  :  and  then  things  stopped.  Despite  prodding  from 
the  Lords,  the  Commons  awaited  the  reception  of  the  proof-texts 
before  they  would  do  anything.  On  the  29th  April,  1647,  "  the 
Scriptures"  were  handed  to  them,  but  the  commencement  of  the 
debate  was  still  postponed  until  May  19.  and  their  review  of  the 
whole  was  not  completed  until  March  17,  1648.  On  the  22d  of 
that  month  a  conference  was  held  with  the  Lords  concerning  the 
changes  introduced  by  the  Uommons.  all  of  which  the  Lords 
assented  to  except  that  on  "  Marriage,"  and  this  being  made 
known  on  June  3  to  the  Commons,  the  amended  Confession  was 
ordered  printed  on  June  20,  1648.  This  edition  omits  the  whole 
of  chapters  xxx  and  xxxi,  and  also  the  fourth  paragraph  of 
chapter  xx  and  part  of  the  fourth  and  the  whole  of  the  fifth  and 
sixth  paragraphs  of  chapter  xxiv,  together  with  the  last  clause 
of  the  fourth  paragraph  of  chapter  xxiii,  besides  making  some 
unimportant  alterations  in  that  paragraph.  "  Further  than  this," 
remarks  Mr.  Shaw,  "  the  Long  Parliament  never  got  in  its  review 
of  the  celebrated  Confession."*  It  was  indeed  taken  up  again  by 
'*  the  Eump  "  in  1560,  and  on  March  2  agreed  to  as  reported  from 
the  Assembly  "  in  all  the  chapters  except  the  30th  and  31st,"  and 
by  an  Act  passed  March  5  declared  to  be  "  the  public  Confession 
of  Faith  of  the  Church  of  England."  But,  as  Mr.  Shaw  remarks, 
"  needless  to  say  that  the  enactment  was  perfectly  futile  and  un- 
regarded." 

Meanwhile,  the  Confession  as  presented  to  Parliament  and  printed 
without  proofs  in  January,  1647,  was  carried  at  once  to  Scotland 
by  Baillie,  and  presented  to  the  Commission  of  the  General  As- 
sembly ;  and  doubtless  the  edition  of  the  same  with  proofs,  jDrinted 
in  the  spring,  reached  Scotland  before  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly. 
At  all  events,  it  was  in  this  form  that,  having  been  carefully  con- 
sidered in  the  Assembly  of  that  year,  it  was  passed  by  an  ap- 
proving act,  nemine  contradicente.  at  its  twenty-third  session.  This 
Act  was  ratified  by  the  Scottish  Parliament,  February  7,  1649  : 
and  after  the  evil  days  of  1661,  again  in  1690.  Thus  it  comes  about 
that  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  is  in  all 
respects  the  Confession  as  framed  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines, 
and  that  the  real  history  of  the  creation  of  the  Confession  closes 
with  its  labors,  and  may  neglect  all  that  was  done  in  Parliament. 

*  As  cited,  i,  p.  363. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      251 

For  the  better  apprehension  of  the  progress  of  the  various 
chapters  of  the  Confession  through  the  hands  of  Assembly  of 
Divines  we  append  a  tabular  statement  of  the  work  done  upon 
each  :* 

Chapter  I  -"The  sub-Committee  for  the  Confession  of  Faith  "  was  instructed  on 
Friday  July  4,  1645,  to  "  make  report  to  the  Assembly  on  Monday  morning  of 
what^;  in  thdr  hands  concerning  ....  the  Scriptures.''  Accordingly  on 
Monday  July  7,  "Dr.  Temple  made  report  of  that  part  of  the  Confession  of 
F^altLMn'glhe  scriptures!  It  wasread,  debated."  It.asdebated  on  Ju^ 
7  11  14  15  IG  17,  18.  It  was  debated  in  review  June  17,  18,  lb4b.  ine 
s'crip'tural  proofs  were  reported  January  7,t  1647,  and  debated  January  7,  8, 
11  lo  IB  14  15:  and  reviewed  April  6,  1647.  It  was  debated  in  the  House 
of 'commons  on  the  19th  and  28th  May,  1647  (Journals  of  the  House  of  Com^ 
mom,  V,  177,  189);  and  the  respited  |  8  again  debated  and  accepted,  17th 
March,  1648  {ih.,  y,  502). 
Chapter  II  -"The  sub-Committee  for  the  Confession  of  Faith  "  was  instructed  on 
Friday   July  4,  1645,  to    "make  report  to  the  Assembly  on  Monday  morn- 

iugof  what  is  in  their  hands  concerning  God "     Meanwhile  on  Ju  y 

16  it  was  "Ordered-Th^  first  Committee  to  prepare  the  Confession  of  Faith 

upon  these  heads:    God  and   the   Holy  Trinity "     Nevertheless  on 

July  18,  the  "report  concerning  God  "  was  made  by  Dr.  Temple,  the  chairman 
of  ''the  sub-Committee."     This  was  debated  July  18  and  23,  and  on  the  latter 
date  it  is  noted  that  a  report  was  "made  from  the  Committee  '   ^;^- obviously 
the  First  Great  Committee,   "of  the  article  of  the  Trinity.       Ck^rly      the 
propositions  concerning  God"  were  reported  in  accordance  with  the  order  of 
July  4  from  the  "sub-Committee  for  the  Confession  of  Faith,     and  the     ar- 
ticle of  the  Trinity,"  in  accordance  with  the  disposition  of  the  heads  made  on 
July  16    by  the  First  Committee.^     The  whole  "Article  concermng     God 
and  the  Holy  Trinity '  "  was  reviewed  June  18,  1646      The  Scriptural  proofs 
were  reported  on  January  8,  1647,  and  debated  and  ordered  on  the  18th     and 
reviewed  April  6.     It  was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  May  28,  1647 
(Journals,  etc.,  v,  189). 
Chapter  Ill.-On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  "Ordered-The  first  Committee  to  prepare 
the  Confession  of  Faith  upon  ....  God's  decrees.  Predestination,  Election, 
etc  "     On  August  29-"  Report  from  the  first  Committee  concerning  God  s 
decrees  "-and  debate  at  once  began.     Debates  were  held  on  August  29,  Sep- 
tember 2,  3,  [8],  9,  11,  October  3, 17. 20,  21,  22,  23,  24  [30  ?],  ^L  November  3  6 
7  11.     It  was  debated  in  review  June  18,  19,  1646,  and  an  additional  debate 
was  held  on   September  23,  1646.     The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  Jan- 
uary 13   1647,  and  debated  and  ordered  January  19,  20,  21 :    they  were  re- 
viewed  April  6.     The  chapter  was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  May 
28,  1647  (Journals,  etc.,  v,  189). 
Chapter  IV.-On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  "Ordered-Th^  first  Committee  to  prepare 
the  Confession  of  Riith  upon  .  ._^^t^ew^rk^fjCreation^ndJWlence^ 

"l^Weliave  taken^theldea  of  this  tabular  statement  from  Shaw  (i,  367  sq.),  who 
prints  such  an  one  ;  and  we  at  first  intended  simply  to  quote  Shaw's  table  But 
on  examination  the  accuracy  of  his  presentation  appeared  scarcely  adequate,  and 
we  have  made  out  the  whole  afresh-deriving,  of  course,  such  aid  from  Shaw  as  we 
could.     Where  our  table  differs  from  Shaw's,  therefore,  it  differs  wittingly. 

t  See  also  3/tH?<^'.«,  p.  473.  i   ,,t-   -^    " 

X  From  B.iillie  also  (ii,  344)  we  learn  that  the  Articles  "God      and      Trinity 
when  first  passed  were  two  sepa-ate  Articles.     See  below,  p.  258. 


252  THE  PRESBJTERIAJSf  AJSD  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

On  November  17,  there  was  made  a  "  ^ep^^fc  from  the  first  Committee  concern- 
ing Creation.''  It  was  debated  on  November  18,  19,  20,  on  the  latter  date  the 
note  running  :  "The  Assembly  proceeded  in  the  debate  of  the  report  of  Crea- 
tion, and  finished."  It  was  reviewed  June  19,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs 
were  reported  on  January  15,  1647,  and  debated  and  ordered  on  January  21 
and  28  ;  they  wei-e  reviewed  April  6.  The  chapter  was  debated  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  October  2,  1647  {Journals,  etc.,  v,  323.) 

Chapter  V. — On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  ^^  Ordered — The  first  Committee  to  prepare 
the  Confession  of  Faith  upon  ....  the  works  of  Creation  and  Providence." 
On  November  27,  there  was  "report  made  from  the  First  Committee  about 
Providence."  It  was  debated  November  28,  December  2  and  4  :  and  reviewed 
and  ordered  June  19,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  debated  on  January 
28,  29,  and  February  1  ;  and  they  were  reviewed  April  6,  1647.  The  chapter 
was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  October  2,  1647  {Jourtials,  etc.,  v,  323). 

Chapter  VI. — On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  "Ordered — The  first  Committee  to  prepare 
the  Confession  of  Faith  upon  ....  Man's  Fall":  and  again,  "The  second 
Committee  :  Sin,  and  the  punishment  thereof."  How  the  two  topics  were  got 
together  we  are  not  informed.  On  November  17,  1645,  there  was  made  a 
"report  concerning  Fall  of  Man,  Sin,  and  the  Punishment  thereof."  This 
was  debated  November  20,  21.  The  review  was  introduced  June  19,  1646, 
and  debated  and  ordered  June  22  and  25  :  and  additions  were  made  June  29. 
The  Scriptural  proofs  were  debated  and  ordered  February  2, 1647  :  and  reviewed 
April  6. 

Chapter  VII. — On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  "Ordered — The  second  Committee  [to  pre- 
pare the  Confession  of  Faith  upon]  ....  the  Covenant  of  Grace."  It  was 
reported  before  October  9,  at  which  date  "the  Assembly  proceeded  in  the  de- 
bate of  the  report  concerning  the  Covenant[s]."*  It  was  debated  further 
October  10,  17,  November  6,  14,  17,  December  23,  1645  ;  and  reviewed  and 
ordered  June  25,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  January  21, 1647^ 
and  debated  and  ordered  February  3  and  5. 

Chapter  VIII. — On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  "Ordered — The  second  Committee  [to 
prepare  the  Confession  of  Faith  upon]  ....  Christ  our  Mediator."  On 
August  29  following,  there  was  "report  made  by  the  second  Committee  of 
Christ  the  Mediator."  It  was  debated  September  2,  3,  4,  8,  9,  11,  12,  15,  16, 
and  November  13,  1645  :  and  reviewed  June  25,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs 
were  debated  and  ordered  February  8,  1647,  and  reviewed  April  6  and  7,  1647. 

Chapter  IX. — On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  ''Ordered — The  second  Committee  [to  pre- 
pare the  Confession  of  Faith  upon]  ....  Free-will."  On  December  15  next, 
"Dr.  Gouge  made  report  about  Free-will, "f  and  on  the  17th  this  report  was 
debated.  It  was  reviewed  and  ordered  June  29,  30,  1646.  The  Scriptural 
proofs  were  reported  February  2,  1647,  and  debated  and  ordered  on  February 
9  :  they  were  reviewed  April  8. 

Chapter  X. — On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  "Ordered — The  third  Committee  [to prepare 
the  Confession  of  Faith  upon]  Effectual  Vocation. "  On  September  9  follow- 
ing, "Mr.  Prophet  made  report  of  Effectual  Calling."  It  was  debated  Sep- 
tember 17,  25,  29  (30),  November  6,  13  :  and  reviewed  and  ordered  June  30, 
1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  February  3, 1647,  and  debated  and 
ordered  February  9  :  they  were  reviewed  April  8. 


*  "Why  the  bracketed  "  s  "  appears  in  the  printed  Minutes  is  not  obvious.  The 
"  s  "  is  arbitrarily  present  or  absent  in  the  allusions  in  the  Minutes. 

t  Wliy  it  is  not  likely  that  this  is  the  first  report  of  chap,  ix  made  to  the  Assem- 
bly is  explained  above,  p.  241. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       253 

Chapter  XI.— Ou  July  16,  1645,  it  was  '^Ordered — The  third  Committee  [to  pre- 
pare the  Confession  of  Faith  upon]  ....  Justification."  On  December  2 
next,  there  was  made  "report  from  Mr.  Cheynell  of  Justification."  It  was 
debated  December  3,  (5),  8,  9,  10,  (11),  16  ;  and  reviewed  and  ordered  July 
23,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  Februaiy  4,  1647,  and  debated 
and  ordered  Feb.  10,  11  :  they  were  reviewed  April  8. 

Chapter  XII. — On  July  16,  1645,  it  was  "Ordered — The  third  Committee  [to  pre- 
pare the  Confession  of  Faith  upon]  ....  Adoption."  On  November  20  next, 
''Mr.  Prophet  brought  in  a  report  from  the  Third  Committee  about  Adoption." 
It  was  reviewed  and  ordered  July  23,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were 
reported  February  5,  1647  :  debated  and  ordered  Februarj'  11  ;  and  reviewed 
April  8. 

Chapter  XIII. — On  July  16, 1645,  it  was  ^^  Ordered — The  third  Committee  [to  pre- 
pare the  Confession  of  Faith  upon]  ....  Saoctification."  On  November  20 
following,  Mr.  Prophet  brought  in  a  report  from  the  Third  Committee  "about 
Sanctification."  It  was  debated  November  24  :  and  reviewed  and  ordered  Sep- 
tember 16  and  23,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  February  5, 
1647,  and  ordered  February  12  :  they  were  reviewed  April  8. 

Chapter  XIV. — On  the  19th  August,  1646,  it  was  ^^  Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  These 
heads  of  Faith,  Repentance,  and  Good  Works  shall  be  referred  to  the  three 
Committees  in  their  order  to  prepare  something  upon  them  for  the  Confession 
of  Faith."*  From  August  21  to  August  31  inclusive  the  Assembly  sat  only  as 
a  Grand  Committee,  lacking  a  quorum  for  a  formal  meeting  :  during  this  time 
the  report  on  Saving  Faith  Avas  reviewed. f  This  report  was  formally  called 
up  in  the  Assembly,  September  4.  It  was  debated  September  9,  and  reviewed 
and  ordered  September  16.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  February  12, 
1647  :  they  were  reviewed  April  8. 

Chapter  XV. — This  chapter  also  was  ordered  to  be  prepared  (by  the  Second  Com- 
mittee) August  19,  1646  (see  under  chap,  xiv  ad  init.).  On  September  9, 
"Dr.  Stanton  made  Report  of  the  Article  concerning  Repentance."  It  was 
debated  September  10,  17,  18,  at  the  last  of  which  sessions  it  was  ordered  :  on 
September  25,  it  was  finally  passed.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  debated  Feb- 
ruary 12,  1647  :  and  reviewed  April  8. 

Chapter  XVI. — This  chapter  also  was  ordered  to  be  prepared  (by  the  Third  Com- 
mittee) August  19,  1646  (see  under  chap,  xiv  ad  init.).  On  September  3 
1646,  "  Report  was  made  by  Dr.  Temple  'of  Good  Works.'  "  It  was  debated 
September  9,  18,  21,  and  ordered  :  the  matter  was  reopened  September  22,  23  ; 
and  the  perfected  Chapter  passed  September  25.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were 
debated  and  ordered  February  15,  1647  :  and  reviewed  April  8. 

Chapter  XVII. — On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "  to  the  First  Commit- 
tee, Perseverance "  On  December  19  following,  there  was  made  "Re- 
port from  the  First  Committee  of  Perseverance."  It  was  debated  December 
29,  1645  ;  and  reviewed  September  14,  1646,  and  finally  passed  September  25. 
The  Scriptural  proofs  were  debated  and  ordered  February  17,  1647,  and  re- 
viewed April  8. 

Chapter  XVIII.— On  February  23,  1646,  it  was  ''Ordered  ....  To  the  Second 
Committee — Certainty  of  Salvation "  It  was  reported  from  the  Sec- 
ond Committee  July  24,  1646,  and  '' Ordered— Thi^  to  be  the  title— 'Of  the 
Certainty  of  Salvation.'  "     It  was  debated  July  24  and  30,  and  September  14, 

*  It  will  be  noted  that  these  three  chapters  were  apparently  afterthoughts  ;  they 
were,  to  all  appearance,  not  contemplated  in  the  first  planning  of  the  Confession, 
t  Minutes,  p.  271. 


251  THE  rilESBYTERlAN  AND  REFOIUIED  REVIEW. 

15,  and  assented  to  under  the  title,  "Of  Assurance  of  Grace  and  Salvation  ;'* 
and  finally  passed  September  25.  Tlae  Scriptural  proofs  were  debated  oa  Feb- 
ruary 17  and  18,  and  reviewed  April  7,  1647. 

Chapter  XIX. — On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "  to  the  Third  Commit- 
tee  the  Law "     On  January  1,  1646,   "Dr.  Wincop  made  report  from 

the  Third  Committee  about  the  Law  of  God."  It  was  debated  on  January  7, 
9  12  13,  29  February  2  and  9,  1646  ;  also  in  the  Grand  Committee  during  the 
interval  in  the  Assembly's  meetings  August  21-31,  and  in  the  Assembly  Septem- 
ber 1,  2, 3  4,  15, 17,  and  finally  passed  September  25,  1646.  A  slight  alteration 
was  further  made  on  December  3.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  debated  and 
ordered  on  February  19  and  22,  1647. 

Chapter  XX. — On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "to  the  First  Commit- 
tee, ....  Christian  Liberty "     It  was  debated  January  29,   1646, 

February  9,  10,  11,  12,  16  (23),  March  (4),  10,*  26,t  27,t  30,  2,1,1  and  again 
September  23,  24,  25,  October  1,  7,  8,  9,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  20,  21,  30.  The 
Scriptural  proafs  were  debated  and  ordered  February  25,  26,  1647,  March  3,  3, 
4  5,  11,  12.  This  chapter  was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  4th 
February,  1648,  and  §  4  respited  until  chapter  xxx  was  under  consideration 
{Journals,  etc.,  v.  455). 

Chapter  XXI. — On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "  to  the  Third  Commit- 
tee, ....  Keligion,  Worship "     And   on  February  23,  1646,  it  was 

"Ordered — To  the  First  Committee,  in  chief  heads, — Christian  Sabbath " 

On  March  5,  1646,  "Mr.  Prophet  male  repsrt  of  Eeligion  and  Worship,"  and 
on  March  9,  there  was  made  "Report  of  the  Sabbath."  "Eeligion  and  Wor- 
ship "  was  debated  March  9,||  10  (when  the  title  was  changed  to  "  of  Eeligious 
Worship"),^  20,  26,**  when  the  subject  is  recorded  as  finished.  The  topic 
"  Of  the  Sabbath  ' '  was  debated  April  6  (when  the  title  was  set  as  "Of  the  Sab- 
bath day  ").  On  October  12  the  two  heads  reappeared  together  :  "Mr.  Tuck- 
ney  made  report  'of  Eeligious  Worship  and  Sabbath-day  ;'  "  but  it  does  not 
appear  further  that  they  constituted  a  single  chapter.  On  October  30,  "the 
Assembly  debated  the  Chapter  '  of  Eeligious  Worship  ;'  and  upon  debate  it  was 
assented  to  .  .  .  .;"  and  there  were  further  debates  on  November  20  and  23, 
and  a  slight  correction  was  ordered  on  December  3.  Eeport  of  Scriptural 
proofs  for  the  21st  chapter  was  made  February  18,  1647.  The  process  by 
which  the  two  chapters  were  reduced  to  one  is  obscure.  It  was  debated  in  the 
House  of  Commons  on  February  4,  1648  {Journals,  etc.,  v,  455). 

Chapter  XXII. — On  January  8,  1646,  there  was  made  a  "Eeport  of  a  Lawful  Oath 
by  Mr.  Prophet."  Mr.  Prophet  was  chairman  of  the  Third  Committee,  but 
no  such  "head"  had  been  recorded  among  the  "heads"  distributed  to  this 
Committee  :  perhaps  it  had  emerged  i|»to  a  separate  topic  in  the  discussions  of 
the  head  of  "worship"  asrsigned  to  the  Third  Committee  on  November  18, 
1645. ft  It  Avas  debated  January  13,  15,  16,  19,  20,  21,  1646  :  and  in  review,  Octo- 
ber 12  ('of  Lawful  Oaths  and  Vows  '),  November  3,  6  :  while  on  November  23 
and  December  3  additional  adjustments  were  made.  The  Scriptural  proofs 
were  reported  February  18  and  reviewed  April  12,  1647.  It  was  debated  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  4th  February,  1648  {Journals,  etc.,  v,  455). 

*  Cf.  also  p.  205.     t  Cf.  p.  436.     X  Cf.  P-  437.     I  Cf.  p.  439. 

II  Cf.  also  p.  205. 

T[  P.  205.     **  Cf.  p.  435. 

ttSee  what  is  said  of  the  topic,  "Lies  and  Equivocations,"  at  the  end  of  this 
tabular  statement  (p.  256  N.  B.)  Is  it  posssible  that  this  chapter  was  developed 
out  of  that  topic  ?  It  is  against  this  supposition  that  different  committees  seem 
concjrned. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      255 

Chapter  XXIII.— On  February  23,  1G4G,  it  wag  "  Ordered— To  the  First  Commit- 
tee, in  chief  heads  ....  the  Civil  Magistrate."  It  was  reported  to  the 
Assembly,  March  26,  1646,  and  debated  April  (23),  24,  27,  [and  possibly  again 
October  (12),  13,  14,  15,  20,  although  these  debates  probably  belong  to  chap. 
xx].  It  was  passed  November  9,  while  further  adjustments  were  made  on 
December  3,  4.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  debated  on  March  3,  and  reviewed 
April  12, 1647.  It  was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  4th  February,  1648 
{Journals,  etc.,  v,  455). 

Chapter  XXIV.— On  February  23,  1646,  it  was  ''  Ordered— To  the  First  Committee, 
in  chief  heads —  ....  Marriage  and  Divorce."  On  June  17  next,  "Keporfc 
was  made  '  of  IMarriage  '  ":  and  the  report  was  taken  up  July  23,  and  debated 
August  3  and  4— apparently  under  the  simple  title  "Of  Marriage."  Accord- 
ingly on  August  10,  "  Dr.  Gouge  made  Report  '  of  Divorce,'  "  which  under  the 
tile  "  Of  Divorce  "  was  taken  up  and  debated  September  10, 11.  The  two  were, 
however,  reported  on  October  12  as  constituting  one  "head,"  and  were  so 
debated  November  9,  10,  11,  and  so  passed.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were 
reported  on  March  3,  1647.  The  chapter  was  debated  in  the  House  of  Com 
mons,  February  4,  11,  and  March  3,  1648  {Journals,  etc.,  v,  455,  461,  478). 

Chapter  XXV.— On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "to  the  First  Commit- 
tee ...  .  the  Church "  When  we  next  hear  of  it,  it  is  already  in  pro- 
cess of  debate,  February  16,  1646  :  the  debate  continues  February  23,  26,  27, 
March  2,  (3,  4),  5  [6,9,*13,t  16,  17,  18,  19,  (20),  (26),  April  3,  7,  8,  10.  13,  14, 
15,  16,  17], t  20,  21,  22. §  It  was  taken  up  in  review  November  13,  1646, 
and  ordered  on  the  17th.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  March  3,  1647. 
The  chapter  was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  March  10,  1G48  {Jour- 
7ials,  etc.,  V,  489). 

Chapter  XXVI.— On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "to  the  First  Com- 
mittee ....  the  Communion  of  Saints."  On  February  17,  1646,  there  was 
made  a  "Eeport  of  the  Committee  of  the  Communion  of  Sacraments"  («ic): 
and  debate  was  entered  upon  on  it  March  3,  and  continued  March  4,  5,  It 
was  resumed  for  review  November  13,  17,  19,  20.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were 
reported  March  3,  1647,  and  reviewed  April  7.  It  was  debated  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  March  10,  1648  (Journals,  etc.,  v,  489). 

Chapter  XXVII.— On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "  to  the  Second  Com- 
mittee ....  Sacraments."  Thfi  report  was  called  for  December  2,  1645,  and 
given  in  December  5.  It  was  debated  December  11,  12,  15,  16,  24,  25,  and 
recalled  for  review  November  10,  1646.  The  Scriptural  proofs  are  not  referred 
to  in  the  Minutes.  It  was  debated  in  the  H6use  of  Commons,  JIarch  10,  1648 
{Journals,  etc.,  v,  489). 

Chapter  XXVIII.— On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "to  the  Second 
Committee  ....  Baptism."  On  December  29  following,  "  Mr.  Calamy  made 
report  of  Baptism."     Debate  was  held  on  the  chapter,  January  1,  2,  5,  6,  8,  9, 

*  Cf.  also  p.  204.     t  Cf.  also  p.  206. 

t  The  mateiial  developed  in  the  debates  recorded  on  the  dates  contained  within 
these  square  brackets  entered  very  little  into  the  formation  of  chap.  xxv.  Part  of 
it  was  incorporated  into  chap.  xxx. 

?  The  debates  on  the  jus  divinum  which  took  place  on  May  (1),  4,  5,  7,  8,  15, 
18,  19,  (25),  28,  June  1,  2,  5,  8,  10,  11,  12,  15,  July  6,  7,  10,  17,  did  not,  of 
course,  directly  concern  chap,  xxv,  but  rather  were  in  preparation  of  the  an.swer  cf 
the  Assembly  to  certain  Parliamentary  "Questions."  See  Baillie's  account  as 
given  on  p.  258,  below  ;  and  compare  Shaw,  I,  308  sq.  But  the  mateiial  ihua 
gathered  indirectly  bore  fruit  for  this  chapter  also. 


256  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

16,  (19),  21,  26,  1646;  and  again  September  11  ;  and  on  November  10  it  was 
reviewed  and  ordered.  No  record  of  the  adding  of  the  Scriptural  proofs.  It 
was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  March  10, 1648  {Journals,  etc.,  v,  489). 

Chapter  XXIX. — On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "to  the  Second  Com- 
mittee ....  the  Lord's  Supper. "  On  December  1  following,  there  was  niade 
a  "Report  from  the  Second  Committee  of  the  Lord's  Supper:"  debate 
was  "proceeded  in"  December  26  :  again  it  was  taken  up  November  11,  12, 
13,  1646,  and  on  November  16  ordered.  On  December  3  some  slight  adjust- 
ments of  language  were  made.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  March  5, 
1647.  The  chapter  was  debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  March  10,  1648 
(^Journals,  etc.,  v,  489). 

Chapter  XXX. — On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "to  the  Second  Com- 
mittee, Officers  and  Censures  of  the  Church."  On  January  29,  1646,  "  Mr.  Dury 
made  report  from  the  Second  Committee  of  Church  Officers  and  Censures."  It 
was  debated  April  23,*  and  recalled  for  review  November  13,  23,  26,  and  at  this 
last  date  ordered.  An  alteration  was  again  proposed  December  1.  The  Scrip- 
tural proofs  were  reported  March  5,  1647,  and  voted  April  2,  1647  (p.  345, 
note  1). 

Chapter  XXXI. — On  November  18,  1645,  there  was  referred  "to  the  Second  Com- 
mittee ....  Councils  or  Sj'nods."  It  was  reported  to  the  Assembly,  August 
4,  1646,  and  debated  August  5,  6,  7, 10,  11,  13,  14,  17,  19,  20  :  and  again  in 
review  November  13  and  26,  when  it  was  ordered.  On  December  3  alterations 
were  debated.  The  Scriptural  proofs  were  reported  March  5,  1647,  debated 
and  ordered  April  2  (p.  345,  note  1),  and  reviewed  April  13. 

Chapter  XXXIL— On  February  23,  1646,  it  was  "Ordered—  ....  To  the  Sec- 
ond Committee,  ....  the  State  of  the  Soul  after  death.  To  the  Third 
Committee,— The  Resurrection."  The  former  was  reported  July  24,  1646,  and 
debated  July  31.  The  latter  was  reported  August  4,  and  debated  September 
4.     On   November  26,  1646,    "the  Assembly  debated  'of  the  state  of    Man 

after  death  :'  and  upon  debate  it, was  assented  to "     How  or  when  the 

two  were  united  does  not  appear.  The  Scriptural  proofs  for  the  chapter  were 
reported  March  5,  1647,  and  voted  April  5  (p.  345,  note2).  It  was debated-in 
the  House  of  Commons,  March  10,  1648  (Journals,  etc.,  v,  489). 

Chapter  XXXIIL— On  February  23,  1646,  it  was  "Ordered—  ....  To  the 
Third  Committee,  ....  the  last  Judgment,  Life  Eternal."  The  topic  was 
debated  in  the  Grand  Committee  during  the  interval  in  the  meetings  of  the 
Assembly,  August  21-31,  1646,  and  was  debated  in  the  Assembly  September 
4,  and  again  on  review  November  26,  when  it  was  ordered.  The  Scriptural 
proofs  were  reported  March  5,  1647,  and  voted  April  5  (p.  345,  note  2).  It  was 
debated  in  the  House  of  Commons,  March  10,  1648  {Journals,  etc.,  v,  489). 

N.  B. — In  the  third  distribution  of  the  "heads  "  made  Februairy  23,  1646,  the  topic 
"Lies  and  Equivocations"  was  assigned  to  the  Second  Committee.  This 
topic  does  not  emerge  again  by  report  to  the  Assembly,  and  there  is  no  such 
chapter  in  the  completed  Confession.  Possibly  it  was  found  that  the  material 
to  be  dealt  with  in  it  was  sufficiently  covered  in  chap,  xxii,  "  Of  Lawful  Oaths 
and  Vows  "  (see  above  chap,  xxii,  uoteff).t 


*  See  above  under  chap,  xxv,  note. 

t  Shaw,  I,  p.  372,  mentions  the  topic  Dedication  to  God,  which  is  repDrted  as 
debated  January  2,  1616,  as  "if  not  represented  by  Article  XII"  (Adoption), 
probably  a  subsequently  omitted  Article.  Possibly,  however,  it  signalizes  only  a 
debate  on  one  phase  of  Baptism,  in  immediate  contiguity  with  which  it  is  mentioned. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      257 

To  this  statement  we  append  tlie  cliief  references  to  tlie  work  of 
the  Assembly  on  the  Confession  made  in  Baillie's  Letters  : 

Under  date  of  August  18,  1644  (Vol.  II,  p.  220),  Baillie  recounts  the  coming  of 
Warristou  and  the  eftbrts  for  expedition  (see  the  text  above,  p.  232),  and  under  date 
of  August  28  (p.  224)  he  recounts  the  progress  thus  far  made  in  the  work  of  "  the 
Covenanted  Uniformity."  Direct  mention  of  the  Confession  begins  in  the  Pub- 
lick  Letter  of  October,  1644  :  "The  Confession  of  Faith  is  referred  to  a  committee 
to  be  put  in  severall  the  best  hands  that  are  here  "  (p.  232).  Under  date  of  Nov- 
ember 21  he  writes:  "What  remains  of  the  Directorie  ....  will  soon  be  dis- 
patched. The  Catechise  is  drawn  up,  and,  I  think,  shall  not  take  up  much  tyme. 
I  feare  the  Confession  of  Faith  may  stick  longer  "  (p.  242) .  Under  date  of  December 
26  :  "If  the  Directorie  and  Government  were  once  out  of  our  hands,  as  a  few  days 
will  put  them,  then  we  will  fall  on  our  great  question  of  Excommunication,  the 
Catechise,  and  Confession.  There  is  here  matter  to  hold  us  long  enough,  if  the 
wrangling  humour  which  has  predomiued  in  many  here  did  continue  ;  but  thanks  be 

to  God,  that  is  much  abated,  and  all  inclines  toward  a  conclusion I  think  we 

must  either  passe  the  Confession  to  another  season,  or,  if  God  will  help  us,  the  heads 
of  it  being  distribute  among  many  able  hands,  it  may  in  a  short  time  be  so  drawn 
up,  as  the  debates  of  it  may  co5t  little  time  "  (p.  248).     Under  date  of  April  25, 

1645  :  "The  Catechise  and  Confession  of  Faith  are  put  in  the  hands  of  severall 
committees,  and  some  reports  are  made  to  the  Assemblie  concerning  both.  We 
expect  not  so  much  debate  upon  these,  as  we  had  in  the  Directorie  and  Govern- 
ment"  (p.  266).  Under  date  of  May  4,  1645  :  "Our  next  work  will  be  the  Con- 
fession and  Catechisme,  upon  both  which  we  have  allreadie  made  some  entrance  " 
(p.  272).  In  an  undated  letter  printed  immediately  after  the  one  just  quoted 
from  :  "  We  are  at  a  point  with  the  Government ;  and  beginning  to  take  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechise  to  our  consideration  "  (p.  275).  Under  date  of  July 
8,  1645:  "  Mr.  Henderson  ....  and  Mr.  Rutherfoord  are  gone  this  day  to  Epsom 
waters  :  so  long  as  anything  is  to  doe  here,  he  cannot  be  away.  I  hope  the  rest  of 
us  may  ere  long  be  well  spared,  if  once  we  had  through  the  Catechise  and  a  part  of  the 
Confession"  (p.  296).  Under  date  of  July  8  :  "Since  my  last,  with  our  former 
part,  July  1,  we  have,  thanks  be  to  God,  at  last  iinished  the  whole  body  of  Gov- 
ernment  Since,  we  have  entered  on  the  Confession  of  Faith  ;  as  yet  I  cannot 

pronounce  of  the  length  or  shortness  of  our  proceedings  therein  "  (p.  300).  In  an 
undated  public  letter  belonging  doubtless  to  August,  1645  :  ''In  the  Assemblie  we 
have  gone  through  a  part  of  the  Catechisme,  and  a  part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  ; 
but  ....  many  [hindrances]  when  least  we  expect  them,  comes  in  our  way 
.  .  .  ."  (p.  306).  Under  date  of  September  5  :  " In  the  Assemblie  we  are  goeing 
on  languidlie  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisme  "  (p.  315).  Under  date 
of  November  25  :  "  In  the  Assemblie,  we  are  goeing  on  with  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
We  had  loag  and  tough  debates  aliout  the  Decrees  of  election  ;  yet  thanks  to  God 
all  is  gone  right  according  to  our  mind"  (p.  325).  "We  go  on  daily  in  some 
proposition  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  :  till  this  be  ended  we  will  not  take  in  any 
more  of  the  Catechise"  (p.  32b).     In  an  undated  letter  belonging  to  January  15, 

1646  :  "We  are  going  on  in  the  Assemljlie  with  the  Confession,  and  could,  if  need 
were,  shortly  end  it "  (p.  336).  In  an  undated  letter  ascribed  by  Dr.  Laing  to 
about  January  20,  1646,  he  says  :  "We  goe  on  with  prettie  speed  now  in  onr  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  We  have  past  the  heads  of  Scripture,  God,  Trinity,  Decrees, 
Providence,  Redemption,  Covenant,  Justilication,  Sanclification,  Free-will,  Sacra- 
ments in  generall,  a  part  of  Perseverance,  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper  "  (p.  344). 
Under  date  of  January  3,  1646  :  "We  proceed  but  slowlie  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  "  (p.  348).  In  February,  1646  :  "  However  we  wait  daylie  on  the  Assemblie, 
yet  our  progresse  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  but  slow  ....  yet  we  hope,  by  God's 
grace,  ere  long  to  end  this  Confession"  (p.  349).     Of.  March  17,  1646  (p.  360). 


258  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Under  date  of  June  26,  1646  :  "The  Parliment's  questions  have  retarded  us  miich  r 
■withont  them  we  had  ended  the  Confession  of  Faith  "  (p,  377).  Under  date  of  July 
14  1646  :  "I  have  put  some  of  my  good  friends,  leading  men  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons to  move  the  Assemblie  to  lay  aside  our  questions"  [" some  very  captions 
questions  of  the  Parliment,  about  the  clear  Scripturall  warrant  for  all  the  punc- 
tillios  of  the  Government,"  sent  in,  as  Baillie  thinks,  just  "to  keep  all  things  from 
any  conclusion  "]  "  for  a  time,  and  labour  that  which  is  most  necessar,  and  all  are 
crying  for,  the  perfecting  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechise.  If  this  motion 
take  I  hope  we  shall  end  shortly  our  Confession,  for  there  is  but  a  few  articles 
now  to  goe  through  :  it  will  be  a  very  gracious  and  satisfactorie  Confession  when 
you  see  it "  (p.  379).  Under  date  of  August  13,  1646  :  "In  the  Assemblie  we  were 
like  to  have  stucken  many  moneths  on  the  questions  ;  and  the  Independents  were 
in  a  way  to  gett  all  their  differences  debated  over  again.  I  dealt  so  with  Mr.  Eons 
and  Mr.  Tate,  that  they  brought  us  ane  order  from  the  House  to  lay  aside  the 
questions  until  Confession  and  Catechise  were  ended.  Many  took  it  for  a  trick  of 
the  Independents  and  Erastians  for  our  hurt ;  but  I  knew  it  was  nothing  less.  We 
are  now  near  an  end  of  our  Confession  :  we  stick  in  the  article  of  Synods,  upon  the 
proposition  of  their  coarcive  power,  or  their  power  to  excommunicat.  If  this  were 
over,  we  apprehend  no  more  long  debates  on  the  Confession  "  (p.  388).  Under  the 
date  of  August  18,  1646  :  "In  the  Assemblie  we  are  returned  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  are  drawing  towards  the  end  of  it  "  (p.  390).  Under  date  of  September 
22,  1646  :  "We  have  ended  the  Confession  of  Faith  for  the  matter,  and  have  perfyted 
the  most  half  of  it,  nyneteen  chapters  ;  the  other  seventeen,  I  hope,  in  ten  or  twelve 
days  will  be  perfyted,  and  so  all  be  sent  up  to  the  Houses.  It  will  be,  I  hope,  a  very 
sweet  and  orthodox  peice,  much  better  than  any  Confession  yet  extant,  if  the  House 
of  Commons  mangle  it  not  for  us  "  (p.  397).  UnSer  date  of  October  2,  1646  :  "  The 
Assemblie  obleidged  themselves  by  promise  to  sitt  before  and  after  noon  for  some 
tyme  ;  but;  now,  thinking  they  have  satisfied  the  Houses,  by  sending  up  the  half  of  the 
Confession,  the  first  nineteen  heads,  they  are  relapsed  into  their  former  negligence. 
So  we  will  be  able  few  days  in  a  week  to  make  ane  Assemblie  ;  for  if  there  be  ane 
fewer  than  forty,  it  is  no  meeting  ;  and  though  the  rest  of  the  heads  be  also  past, 
yet,  in  the  review,  the  alteration  of  words,  and  the  methodizing,  takes  up  so  much 
time,  that  we  know  not  when  we  shall  end.  Besides  that  we  have  some  addition- 
alls,  especially  one  proposition  about  libertie  of  conscience,  wherein  the  Indepen- 
dents offer  to  keep  us  long  and  tough  debates  ;  for  long  agoe  they  have  laid  doune 
in  this  their  maske,  and  pleads  for  a  libertie  weell  near  universall  "  (pp.  400,  401). 
Under  date  of  October  13,  1646  :  "  Our  Assemblie  for  one  twenty  dayes  posted  hard  ; 
hot  since  hes  gotten  into  its  old  pace.  The  first  halfe,  and  more,  of  the  Confession 
we  sent  up  to  the  House  ;  the  end  of  these  who  called  for  it,  wes  the  shuffling  out 
the  Ordinance  against  Errors  :  yet  our  friends  hes  carried  to  goe  on  with  that  ;  but 
others  hes  carried  the  putting  of  Scriptures  to  the  margin  of  the  Confession,  which 
may  prove  a  very  long  business,  if  not  dexterouslie  managed.  It  will  yet  bs  a 
fortnight  before  the  other  halfe  of  it  be  ready ;  for  sundry  necessar  but  scabrous 
propositions  were  added  in  the  review  "  (p.  403).  Under  date  of  October  27,  1646  : 
"  .  .  .  .  before  the  Assemblie  end  the  Confession  ;  for  that  long  I  purpose  to  stay, 
though  my  permission  t  J  gos  were  come"  (p.  406).  Under  date  of  December  1,  1646: 
"With  much  adoe  we  have  gone  through,  at  last;  the  rest  of  our  Confession  :  the 
first  part  I  sent,  to  you  three  only,  in  Mr.  David's  letter,  long  agoe  ;  the  whole 
will  goe  up  to  the  House  one  of  these  dayes,  and  so  to  the  presse.  It's  generally 
taken  here  for  a  very  gracious  and  brave  peece  of  work  "  (p.  411).  About  Christ- 
mas, 1646  :  "Our  Assemblie,  with  much  adoe,  at  last  have  wrestled  through  the 
whole  Confession,  and  all  is  now  printed.  The  House  of  Commons  requires  to  put 
Scripture  to  it  before  they  take  it  to  consideration  ;  and  what  time  that  will  take 
up,  who  knows?"  (p.  415).  Under  date  of  January  26, 1647  :  "The  third  point  [of 
Uniformity],  the  Confession  of  Faith,  I  brought  it  with  me  [to  Scotland],  now  in 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      259 

print,  as  it  wes  offered  to  the  Houses  by  the  Assemblie,  without  considerable  dis- 
sent of  any.  It's  much  cryed  up  by  all,  even  many  of  our  greatest  opposites,  as 
the  best  Confession  yet  extant ;  it's  expected  the  Houses  shall  pass  it,  as  they  did  the 
Directorie,  -without  much  debate.  Howbeit,  the  retarding  partie  hes  put  the 
Assemblie  to  add  Scriptures  to  it,  which  they  omitted  only  to  eschew  the  offence  of 
the  House,  whose  practice  hitherto  hes  been  to  enact  nothing  of  religion  on  divine 
right  or  scripturall  grounds,  bat  upon  their  own  authoritie  alone.  This  innovation 
of  our  opposites  may  weell  cost  the  Assemblie  some  time,  who  cannot  doe  the  most 
easie  things  with  any  expedition  ;  but  it  will  be  for  the  advantage  and  strength  of 
the  work"  (vol.  iii,  p.  2).  Cf.  June  2,' 1647  (pp.  5,  6).  Speech  in  the  General 
Assembly  at  Edinburgh,  August  6,  1647  :  "Right  Honourable  and  Reverend,  yow 
remember,  that  all  your  ecclesiastick  desyres  from  your  brethren  of  England,  that 
all  the  commissions  and  instructions  laid  upon  us  your  servants,  were  only  for  the 
obtaining  of  Uniformitie  in  four  particulars, — in  the  Worship  of  God,  in  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Church,  in  a  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Catechisme In  your 

third  desyre,  the  Lord  made  our  successe  no  less  prosperous  ;  a  large  Confession  of 
Faith  is  perfyted  with  farr  greater  unaniraitie  than  any  living  could  have  hoped  for, 
among  so  many  learned  divines,  in  so  distempered  a  place  and  distracted  a  season. 
I  am  confident,  if  the  judgment  of  many  my  wiser  do  not  deceave,  this  piece  of 
work  is  so  fine  and  excellent,  that  whenever  yow  shall  be  pleased  to  look  upon 
it,  the  sight  of  it  shall  draw  from  the  most  censorius  eye,  a  good  acceptation  "  (p. 
11;  cf.  p.  12).  Under  date  of  September  1,  1647,  giving  account  of  the  Scotch 
General  Assembly  :  "  We  agreed  ....  after  much  debate  in  the  Committee,  to 
the  Confession  of  Faith  "  (p.  20). 

A  word  in  conclusion  as  to  the  title  of  tlie  volume  thus  pre- 
pared is  perhaps  not  out  of  place.  The  Assembly  of  Divines  quite 
constantly  speak  of  it  in  their  minutes,  from  the  beginning,  as  "  a 
Confession  of  Faith,"  or,  after  it  was  begun,  "  the  Confession  of 
Faith."  The  term  was  doubtless  derived  from  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant,  which  enumerates,  among  the  items  in  which  uni- 
formity should  be  sought  between  the  two  nations,  "  Confession 
of  Faith."  Meanwhile,  however,  the  work  of  its  preparation  was 
prosecuted  without  formally  setting  upon  a  title  for  the  completed 
book.  On  the  3d  of  September,  1646,  as  it  was  approaching- 
completion,  it  was  "  Ordtred — The  Committee  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  do  prepare  a  title  for  it;"  and  on  Septem- 
ber 24  this  duty  was  apparently  laid  specifically  on  Dr.  Burgess. 
On  September  25  the  report  upon  the  title  came  in,  ""and  it  was 
Ordered — This  to  be  the  title  :  '  To  the  Hon'^'*^  the  House  of  Com- 
mons assembled  in  Parliament,  The  humble  Advice  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  Divines,  now  by  authority  of  Parliament  sitting  at  West- 
minster, concerning  part  of  a  Confession  of  Faith.'  "  To  the 
completed  Confession  also  a  like  title  was  assigned :  and  it  was  under 
this  title  that  the  Confession  was  printed  in  the  first  instance. 
The  title  thus  suggested,  however,  did  not  meet  with  the  approval 
of  the  House  of  Commons.  It  seemed  to  it,  as  Rushworth 
tells  us,*  that  nothing  was  i)ractically  a  Confession  which   did  not 

*  See  Mitchell  in  Minutes,  416. 


260  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

take  the  form  of  "I  confess  "  at  the  beginning  of  each  section, 
and,  moreover,  that  it  were  well  to  keep  up  the  usage  established 
by  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  ;  and  so  they  altered  the  title  to 
"  Articles  of  Faith  agreed  upon  by  both  Houses  of  Parliament," 
or  rather  to  ' '  Articles  of  Christian  religion  approved  and  passed 
by  both  Houses  of  Parliament  after  advice  had  with  the  Assembly 
of  Divines  "• — under  which  latter  title  they  published  the  Confes- 
sion with  the  slight  alterations  they  had  made  in  it,  in  the  summer 
of  1648.*  The  adoption  of  the  earlier  title  by  the  Church  of 
Scotland  in  its  previous  action,  together  with  the  failure  of  the 
whole  movement  in  England,  has  secured  that  the  work  has  lived 
under  the  simple  title  of  "  The  Confession  of  Faith  ":  and  it  is  as 
such  that  it  is  known  among  all  the  Churches  which  still  adhere 
to  it. 

II. — The  Formulation  of  the  Third  Chapter. 

The  third  chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  having  been  pre- 
pared in  first  draft  by  the  Committee  appointed  for  that  service 
(May  12,  1645),  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  First  Great  Com- 
mittee (July  16,  1645)  to  the  Assembly.  It  was  reported  from 
this  Committee  on  August  29,  1645  (Friday),  and  the  Assembly  at 
once  entered  into  debate  upon  it.  Debate  is  mentioned  as  being 
held  upon  it  August  29,  September  2,  3,  [8],  9,  11,  October  3,  17, 
20,  21,  22,  23,  24,  [30],  31,  November  3,  6,  7,  11.  In  the  mean- 
time portions  of  the  chapter  were  twice,  at  least,  (September  3  and 
November  6)  recommitted — doubtless  (for  such  seems  to  have 
been  the  Assembly's  custom)  to  special  Committees  :  and  on  five 
occasions  (September  [8],  9,  11,  October  3,  17,  21)  the  original 
Committee  brought  in  additional  reports.  In  the  subsequent 
reviewing  of  the  Confession  as  passed,  the  third  chapter  was 
debated  again  on  Thursday  and  Friday,  June  18,  19,  1646,  before 
it  was  finally  ordered.  It  appears.,  further,  that  Mr.  Whitaker,  a 
member  of  the  Committee  of  Review,  appointed  December  8, 
1645,  but  acting  apparently  on  his  own  behalf  alone  on  this  occa- 
sion, moved  an  additional  alteration  in  the  chapter  on  September 
23,  1646,  and  this  naturally  caused  some  further  debate.  The  text 
was  now,  however,  finally  passed  from.  The  proof- texts  for  the  chap- 
ter were  debated  on  January  [13],  19,  20,  21,  1647.  and  after  having 
been  considered  by  the  reviewing  Committee  appointed  March  5, 
1647,  were  finally  passed  on  by  the  Assembly,  April  6,  1647. 
Thus  the  text  of  the  third  chapter  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
Assembly  some  part  of  at  least  twenty  separate  days,  besides  all  the 
time  given  to  it  in  the  various  Committees  through  whose  hands  it 

*Mitchell  in  Minutes,  416,  and  in  Baird  Lectures,  378-9  snd  526  ;  Shaw,  I,  365. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       261 

or  parts  of  it  passed.  The  proof -texts  similarly  occupied  the  Assem- 
bly on  some  parts  of  at  least  four  days  in  addition^to  the  care  given 
to  them  in  Committee,  It  would  not  be  excessive  to  say,  in  a  word, 
that  a  good  portion  of  a  month's  public  labor  was  given  to  this 
chapter  by  the  Assembly  ;  and  certainly  much  more  than  this  was 
expended  on  it  by  its  Committees. 

The  debates  upon  the  chapter  which  are  signalized  in  the 
Minutes  seem  to  have  been  especially  careful  and  persistent  :*  and 
they  are  perhaps  unusually  f  nlly  reported.  We  are  not  able  to 
trace  them  in  full,  to  be  sure,  or  even  to  ascertain  all  the  points 
on  which  they  turned.  But  it  is  presumable  that  those  mentioned 
explicitly  were  of  more  importance  thari  those  passed  over  without 
so  much  as  an  indication  of  the  points  on  which  they  turned  ;  and 
doubtless  those  recorded  in  some  detail  were  the  most  important  of 
all.  If  we  may  assume  so  much,  we  are  not  without  some  hint  as  to 
the  matters  about  which  most  interest  was  felt,  and  the  phraseology 
of  whicb  was  framed  most  carefully  and  in  the  fullest  light.  As 
is  usual  in  such  cases,  the  real  work  of  creating  the  chapter  was  of 
course  done  in  Committee  ;  and  the  chapter  as  finally  passed  by 
the  Assembly  is  obviously  substantially  what  in  the  first  instance 
was  reported  by  the  Committee.  The  notes  of  debate  are  suffi- 
cient to  certify  us  of  that  natural  and  almost  inevitable  fact.  But 
they  also  certify  us  that  it  was  not  passed  by  the  Assembly  with- 
out the  most  careful  scrutiny  or  without  many  adjustments  and 
alterations,  so  that  as  passed  it  represents  clearly  the  deliberate 
and  reasoned  judgment  of  the  Assembly  as  a  whole. 

This  will  at  once  be  made  evident  by  merely  noting  the  special 
points  debate  on  which  is  signalized.  They  concern  the  title  of  the 
chapter  (August  29) ;  the  phrasing  of  the  first  section  in  no  less  than 
six  separate  particulars  (August  29) ;  the  whole  form  of  statement 
of  the  latter  half  of  the  second  section  (September  3  and  11) ; 
the  statement  of  reprobation  in  section  three  (November  3,  1645, 
and  September  23,  1646) ;  the  whole  fabric  and  especially  the 
retention  of  a  particular  phrase  of  the  fifth  section  (October  3  and 
17,  1645) ;  the  entire  structure  of  the  sixth  section  (October  20,  21), 
and,  above  all,  the  assertion  of  its  last  clause  (October  22,  23,  24 
30,  31) ;  the  mode  of  statement  of  section  seven  (November 
6,  7,  11) ;  and  at  least  the  phraseology  of  section  eight  (June  18, 
1646),  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  is  but  a  partial  list 
of  the  topics  debated  ;  the  precise  topic  debated  is  not  always 
mentioned  when  the  fact  of  a  debate  on  chapter  iii  is,  neverthe- 

*Baillie  says  (Xovember  25,  1645;  II,  p.  325):  "We  had  lojg  and  tough 
debates  about  the  Decree3  of  Election  ;  yet  thanks  to  God  all  is  gone  right  accord- 
ing to  our  mind." 


262  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

less,  recorded ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  when  it  is 
mentioned  it  is  always  done  with  completeness.  The  record  is 
enough,  however,  to  assure  us  that  the  debate  was  both  extremely 
searching  and  very  comprehensive.  This  chapter  did  not  leave 
the  Assembly's  hands,  we  may  feel  sure,  without  having  been  con- 
formed in  every  particular  to  the  Assembly's  belief  and  even  taste. 

This  will  become  even  more  apparent  if  we  will  attend  to  the 
details  debated,  so  far  as  the  record  enables  us  to  follow  them.  It 
is  quite  clear  that  the  report  brought  in  by  the  Committee,  while 
framed  with  independence  and  special  theological  knowledge  and 
skill,  was  yet  based  upon  the  Irish  Articles,  and  in  places  followed 
them  very  closely — though  elsewhere  breaking  away  from  them 
and  striking  out  a  new  path.  The  knowledge  of  this  fact  will 
enable  us  now  and  again  to  reconstruct  the  form  of  the  language 
in  the  original  report,  and  so  to  follow  the  lines  of  the  debate 
somewhat  more  closely  than  would  otherwise  be  possible  irom  the 
meagre  hints  of  the  record.  • 

1.  For  example,  when  we  are  told  in  the  minutes  of  August  29, 
1645,   that  debate  on  this  chapter   was  first   joined   "  upon   the 
title,"  we  shall  be  wise  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  title  of  the  cor- 
responding Article  in  the  Irish  Articles  ran  :   "Of  God's  Eternal 
Decree  and  Predestination,"  and  that  it  is  therefore  extremely  likely 
that  it  was  reported  to  the  Assembly  in  some  such  form.     "We 
note  accordingly  with  interest  that  in  the  distribution  of  the  heads 
of  the  Confession  to  the  three  great  Committees  which  was  made 
on  July  16,  this  head  reads  "  God's  decrees,  Predesiination,  Elec- 
tion, etc."     It  is  altogether  likely,  therefore,  that  when  this  chap- 
ter came  to  the  Assembly  it  bore  a  title  somewhat  like  that  of  the 
Irish  Articles,    "  Of  God's   Eternal   Decree  and  Predestination," 
and  that  the  Assembly  curtailed  this  to  the  simpler  "  Of  God's 
Eternal  Decree  ; ' '   although,  of  course,  it  is  possible,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  it  was  the  simpler  title  that  it  bore,  and  what  happened 
in  the  Assembl}'  was  that  it  was  queried  whether  the  longer  title 
of  the  earlier  Articles  were  not  better  restored.     This  Irish  title 
was  not  exactly  tautological ;  for  in  the  prevailing  speech  of  the 
time  the  term   "Predestination"   was  commonly  limited  to  the 
soteriological  decree,  so  that  in  the  Irish  title  the  collocation  really 
is  equivalent  to  "  Of  God's  general  and  special  decree,"   or  "Of 
God's  cosmical  and  soteriological  decree."      Even   the  threefold 
enumeration  made  in  the  designation  of  the  topic  in  the  act  dis- 
tributing the  heads  of  the   Confession  to  the  Committees,  would 
not  be  incapable  of  defense  on  the  ground  of  progressive  advance 
from  the  more  general  to  the  more  specific.     It  was  not  uncus- 
tomary at  the  time,  however,  to  look  upon  the  word  "  Predestina- 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       263 

tiou  "  as  so  much  a  synonym  of  "  Election,"  that  it  embodied  all 
its  precious  connotations — ^a  fact  which  underlies  the  discrimination 
between  the  terms  "  predestinate  "  and  "  foreordain  "  as  used  in 
the  third  and  fourth  sections,  which  otherwise  would  be  puzzling. 
However  accordant  with  current  usage  it  was,  it  might  well  have 
seemed,  therefore,  desirable  to  avoid  the  formal  and  unexplained 
treatment  of  Predestination  as  a  more  inclusive  word  than  Election. 
Even  the  Irish  heading  might  seem,  indeed,  to  some,  although  not 
essentially  tautological,  yet  to  bear  so  nearly  the  formal  appear- 
ance of  tautology  as  to  be  ollensive  to  the  severer  taste  represented 
in  the  Assembly.  The  choice  of  the  brief  and  simple  "  Of  God's 
Eternal  Decree  "  surely  seems,  in  any  event,  to  do  the  Assembly 
credit :  it  is  as  terse  and  simple  as  all  the  rest  of  its  work  and  may 
be  looked  upon  as  a  fair  indication  of  its  temper  and  taste  alike. 

We  might  be  tempted  to  suppose  that  in  the  debate  on  the  title 
of  the  chapter  another  point  w^ould  be  raised — whether  the  singu- 
lar or  plural  form  should  be  used — "Of  God's  Eternal  Decree," 
or  "  Of  God's  Eternal  Decrees."*  On  October  20,  when  the  sixth 
section  of  the  chapter  was  under  discussion,  a  question  involved 
in  this  difference  was  under  debate,  and  some  difference  of  opinion 
on  the  matter  was  developed.  There  is  no  hint,  however,  that  the 
question  was  raised  when  the  title  of  the  chapter  was  under  discus- 
sion ;  and  the  very  occurrence  and  especially  the  nature  of  the 
subsequent  debate  render  it  diflacult  to  suppose  that  the  same 
subject  had  already  been  threshed  out  so  short  a  while  before.  It 
seems  altogether  likely  that  the  debate  on  the  title  was  confined, 
therefore,  to  its  compass,  and  that  the  form  '*  Of  God's  Eternal 
Decree  ' '  was  simply  adopted,  without  question  raised,  from  the 
Irish  Articles.  How  little  importance  was  attached  to  the  difference 
between  the  singular  and  plural  forms  is  evident  not  only  from  the 
subsequent  debate,  in  which  indifference  to  it  is  manifested  by  the 
strongest  Calvinists  in  the  body  and  it  is  generally  treated  as  a  ques- 
tion of  language  rather  than  of  things;  but  also  from  the  circum- 
stance that  though  the  singular  form  is  consistently  maintained  in 
the  Confession,  the  plural  is  equally  consistently  maintained  in  the 
Catechisms,  both  Larger  and  Shorter. f 

*  In  the  interesting  discussion  published  in  pages  185  sq.  of  his  Theology  of  tlie 
Westminster  Symbols,  Dr.  Edward  D.  ^lorris  appears  to  suggest  something  like  this. 
"An  interesting  discussion,"  he  says,  "seems  to  have  arisen  in  the  Assembly 
respecting  the  use  of  the  singular  or  the  plural  term,  decree  or  decrees,  in  the  expo- 
sition of  this  general  doctrine."  There  is,  however,  no  indication  of  any  such  dis- 
cussion having  occurred  on  the  title :  the  debate  adverted  to  by  Dr.  Morris  was 
upon  the  sixth  section  and  concerned  directly  another  matter — as  will  be  seen 
below.  The  Westminster  divines  obviously  attached  very  little  importance  to  this 
mere  matter  of  phraseologj'. 

t  The  loosely  kept  notes  which  we  have  of  the  Minutes  are  too  carelessly  written 


264  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

2,  Our  knowledge  tliat  the  Irish  Articles  underlay  the  draft  sent 
in  to  the  Assembly  is  of  yet  more  aid  to  us  in  understanding  the 
debates  that  are  noted  as  having  taken  place  on  the  first  section  of 
the  chapter  (August  29,  164:5).  These  are  hinted  at  in  the  Min- 
utes as  follows:  "  Debate  about  the  word  '  counsel,'  about  those 
words  '  most  holy  wise,'  and  about  those  words  '  his  own.'  Debate 
about  that  word  '  time,'  about  the  word  '  should.'  Debate  about 
the  transposing."  Not  all  these  words  occur  in  the  section  as 
passed  :  but  they  are  explicable  from  the  Irish  Articles.  We 
need  only  to  assume  that  the  first  half  of  the  section  as  at  first 
reported  was  more  similar  to  the  Irish  Articles  than  it  became  in 
the  course  of  the  debate.  It  probably  ran  as  follows:  "  God 
from  all  eternity  did,  by  the  most  holy  and  wise  counsel  of  His 
own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  in  time 
should  come  to  pass."  In  the  process  of  the  debate  the  word 
"  counsel  "  was  scrutinized  and  retained  ;  the  adjectives  "  holy  '^ 
and  ' '  wise  ' '  were  transposed  ;  ' '  His  OAvn  ' '  was  scrutinized  and 
retained  ;  and  the  last  clause  after  careful  scrutiny  of  its  phrase- 
ology was  exchanged  to  the  simpler  "  whatsoever  comes  to  pass." 
Thus  the  form  that  was  adopted  was  arrived  at :  "  God  from  all 
eternity  did,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  His  own  will, 
freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  That 
the  changes  thus  made  were  improvements  we  can  scarcely  doubt : 
the  order  "  wise  and  holy  "  is  the  order  of  nature  as  well  as 
climax,  in  its  progress  from  the  intellectual  to  the  moral  perfec- 
tions;  while  the  new  concluding  clause  is  not  only  simpler  and 
free  from  apparent  but  fictitious  limitation,  but  avoids  raising 
puzzling  questions  as  to  ^vhat  are  to  be  classed  as  pre-  or  extra- 
temporal  and  what  as  temporal  acts.* 

What  is  intended  by  "  the  transposing,"  debate  on  which  is 
noted,  we  have  no  means  of  confidently  determining.  It  may 
concern  simply  the  transposition  of  the  adjectives  "wise"  and 
"  holy,"  which  we  have  already  referred  to.  It  may,  on  the  other 
hand,  concern  some  other  transposition  of  words  as  originally 
reported  of  which  we  have  no  knowledge — or  indeed  some  trans- 
position of  the  words  as  given  us  which  was  not  carried  out.  We 
note  that  the  concluding  words  "   but  rather  established"   stand 

to  offer  any  testimony  in  such  a  matter.  If  we  have  counted  correctly,  the  Third. 
Chapter  is  mentioned  more  or  less  formally  by  name  ten  times  in  the  MirnUes. 
In  five  the  plural  is  used  (pp.  114,  126,  127,  322,  323);  in  five  the  singular  (pp. 
126,  129,  130,  245,  246). 

*  In  the  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  12,  the  words  "in  time"  are  retained  :  "God's 
decrees  are  the  wise,  free  and  holy  acts  of  the  counsel  of  his  will,  whereby,  from  all 
eternity,  he  hath,  for  his  own  glory,  unchangeably  foreordained  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass  in  time,  especially  concerning  angels  and  men." 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       265 

in  the  Irish  Articles  "  but*  established  rather":  possibly  the 
reference  is  to  this.  It  seems  most  probable,  however,  that  it 
refers  to  a  transposition  to  a  new  section  of  tlie  clause  excluding 
dependence  of  the  decree  on  the  Divine  foresight,  to  the  likelihood 
of  which  we  shall  recur  when  speaking  of  the  following  section— 
which,  as  we  shall  see,  was  originally  a  part  of  this  section. 

3.  The  second  section  of  the  Confession  has  nothing  parallel  to 
it  in  the  Irish  Articles,  which  reserve  the  guarding  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  God's  decree  until  they  are  dealing  with  specific  or 
soteriological  predestination  (§  14).  Without  this  aid  we  find  our- 
selves naturally  in  difficulties  as  we  essay  to  reconstruct  its  original 
form.  The  chief  notes  in  the  Minutes  concerning  it  are  found  in 
the  entries  for  September  3  and  September  11.  The  former  reads  : 
"  Report  from  the  first  Committee  about  adding  the  word  '  abso- 
li^itely  '—debated.  Absolutely  without  any  [not  being  moved 
thereunto  by  any]*  foresight  of  anything  without  himself  as  a  con- 
dition moving  him  thereunto.  (9rc/erecZ— This  recommitted." 
The  latter  reads:  "Report  from  the  morning  Committee  that 
they  think  the  former  vote  of  the  Assembly  sufficient  to  print  ? 
the  conditional  decree . " 

It  is  at  least  evident  from  these  notes  that  the  framing  of  this 
section  cost  the  Assembly  some  trouble.     The  new  report  from 
the  digesting  Committee   as  to  adding  the  word  "absolutely" 
is  proof  that  there  had  already  been  puzzled  discussion   of    the 
section.     The    recommitment    of    the   matter,   doubtless  (as   was 
the  wont  of  the  Assembly)  to  a  special   Committee,  exhibits  its 
dissatisfaction  with  its  work  so  far.     Probably  between  Septem- 
ber 3  and  September  11   the  matter  had  again  been  before  the 
Assembly,  and  the  adjustment  made  which  gives  us  our  present 
section  :   for  the   report  of  September  11   appears  to  have  come 
from  a  Committee  meeting  that  morning,  and  seems  to  close  the 
matter  by  recommending  the  treatment  of   a    so-called    "  condi- 
tional decree,"    as  it  then  stood,  for  passage  for  printing.     Cer- 
tainly   the    adjustment   that    was   made    was    a    good   deal    of    a 
triumph  :    we  do  not  indeed  know  the  wording  of  the  whole  sec- 
tion as  originally  reported,  or  at  any  former  stage  of  the  debate- 
but  the  phrasing  as  ultimately  agreed  on  is  obviously  a  much  finer 
piece  of  work  than  anything  could  have  been  of  which  the  phra- 
seology of  the  note  of  September  3  was  a  part.     Is  it  too  much 
to  conjecture  that  this  clause,  for  which  no  appropriate  place  can 
b3  found  in  section  2  as  passed,  was  originally  only  a  part  of  the 
first  section— coming,   perhaps,  in  between  the  first  and  second 
clauses  of  that  section  ?     In  that  case  the  sentence  would  have 
*The  words  here  placed  in  brackets  stand  in  the  Miuutes  ahou  the  line. 


266  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

read :  ' '  God  from  all  eternity  did,  by  tlie  most  wise  and  holy  counsel 
of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass,  without  any  foresight  of  anything  without  himself 
as  a  condition  moving  him  thereunto  :  yet  so  as  there b3%  etc." 
The  stages  of  procedure  would,  in  that  case,  be  as  follows  :  First, 
it  was  sought  to  strengthen  the  statement  by  inserting  "  abso- 
lutely "  before  "without."  Then  it  was  queried  whether  the 
"  any  "  might  not  be  better  omitted.  Then  a  new  phraseology 
was  tried  :  instead  of  "  absolutely  without  foresight  of  anything," 
it  was  proposed  to  read  "  not  being  moved  thereto  by  any  fore- 
sight of  anything."  It  was  finally  seen  that  the  trouble  lay 
deeper  than  any  adjustment  of  mere  phraseology  could  cure ;  that 
the  proposed  addition  to  the  Irish  statement  at  this  point  hopelessly 
overweighted  the  sentence.  The  knot  was  then  happily  cut  by 
relieving  the  sentence  of  the  addition  altogether  and  erecting  a  new 
section,  which  then  it  was  comparatively  easy  to  phrase  happily. 
And,  as  we  have  already  hinted,  perhaps  it  is  this  transposition 
that  was  debated,  but  not  determined,  on  August  29. 

It  is  so  far  in  favor  of  this  general  supposition  that  it  is  alto- 
gether likely  that  an  attempt  would  first  be  made  to  include  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  general  or  cosmical  decree  in  one  section,  as 
had  been  done  in  the  Irish  Articles  ;  and  the  relieving  of  the  heavy 
sentence  which  thence  resulted  would  be  apt  to  be  an  afterthought. 
And  it  seems  to  be  brought,  in  this  general  sense  at  least,  out  of 
the  region  of  conjecture  into  that  of  ascertained  fact  by  a  note 
in  the  minutes  of  September  8 :  "  Dr.  Gouge  offered  a  report  of 
an  addition,  though  the  Committee  was  not  a  full  number,  but  7. 
He  read  it ;  but  the  Assembly  thought  not  fit  to  meddle  with  it, 
because  they  were  not  a  Committee.  The  addition  was,  Avithout 
respect  to  anything  foreseen,  to  be  added  after  freelv  and  un- 
changeably." These  words  occur  in  the  first  section,  which,  accord- 
ingly, it  was  proposed  to  read  thus  :  "  God  from  all  eternity  did,  by 
the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchange- 
ably, without  respect  to  anything  foreseen,  ordain  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass."  The  proposal  brought  by  Mr.  Gouge  is  evidently  a  substi- 
tute for  the  heavy  clause  that  was  debated  and  recommitted  on 
September  3,  and  accordingly  that  clause  too  was  a  part  of  the  first 
section. 

The  main  result,  in  any  event,  of  our  scrutiny  of  the  section  is 
to  advertise  to  us  the  importance  which  was  attached  by  the 
Assembly  to  the  proper  guarding  of  the  doctrine  of  the  decree. 
This  they  sought  to  accomplish  by  adding  in  some  fit  way  to  the 
statement  of  the  Irish  Articles  a  clause  explicitly  affirming  the 
independence  of  the  decree — or,    as  has  actually  resulted  in  the 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       267 

event,  fully  setting  forth  the  relation  of  the  decree  to  the  divine 
knowledge. 

4.  So  far  as  the  Minutes  record,  there  was  very  little  debate  on 
sections  3  and  4,  which,  again,  together  represent  a  single  section 
in  the  Irish  Articles  (§  12).     We  read  indeed  in  the  notes  for 
October  3:   "  Report  additional  to  the  article  of  Predestination. 
Debate  about  it."     It  is  possible  that  this  may  refer  to  section  3, 
in  which  the  term  "  predestinated  "  occurs  for  the  first  time,  and 
in  which  the  thing,  as  currently  defined  (of  specific  or  soteriolog- 
.  ical  predestination^,    for  the  first   time   emerges.     On   the  other 
hand,  however,  the  term  may  be  used  in  a  still  narrower  sense  and 
the  reference  be  to  section  5,  where  the  doctrine  of  election  is 
discussed  in  its  details.     And  it  is  almost  equally  possible  that 
it  is  used  in  its  broadest  sense   and  refers  to  the  chapter  as   a 
whole.     The   sequence  of   notices  runs  as  follows:    August    29, 
1645,    "Debate   on  the   report   of  ...  .  God's    decree;"    Sep- 
tember 2,    "proceed   in  the    debate  of    the  report  of  decrees;" 
September  9,  "  report  concerning  God's  decree;"  September  11, 
"  proceed  in  the  debate  about  the  decree  ;"   October  3,   "  report 
additional  to  the  article  of  Predestination  ; "   October  17,  "  debate 
upon    the    report    concerning     Predestination"    [when  §  5    was 
debated]  ;    November  6,   "  the  paragraph  concerning  Eeprobation 
referred  to  the  Committee,  to  make  report  to-morrow  morning  ;" 
November  7,  "  Report  made  about  Reprobation  ; "  November  11, 
"  Debate  the  report  of  Reprobation"    [when  §  7   was  debated]. 
The  appearance  is  rather  strong  that  under  the  term  "  Predesti- 
nation "    the  portion  of  the  chapter  that  treats  of  soteriological 
predestination,  or  more  particularly  §§  3-6,  was  intended. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  entry  in  the  Minutes  of 
November  3:  "Debate  about  leaving  out  those  words,  'fore- 
ordained to  everlasting  death,'  "  refers  to  section  3  :  though  it  is, 
of  course,  not  absolutely  impossible  (though  most  unlikely)  that 
coming  in  at  this  late  point  in  the  debate,  it  may  refer  to  a  phrase 
originally  in  section  7,  and  omitted  as  the  result  of  this  debate. 
The  likelihood  of  its  reference  to  section  3  is  moreover  distinctly 
increased  by  an  entry  at  a  much  later  date— after  the  Confession,  in 
fact,  had  been  completed,  and  was  ready  to  be  sent  up  to  Parliament. 
In  the  Minutes  for  September  23,  1646,  we  read  :  "Mr.  Whitakers 
moved  an  alteration  in  these  words  in  the  chapter  of  Predestina- 
tion, viz.,  '  and  some  ordained  to  everlasting  death.'*  It  was 
debated,  and  upon  debate  it  was  Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  The  words 

*  Dr.  Mitchell  notes  that  in  the  additional  copy  of  the  :Minutcs  lapping  at  Ihis 
part,  -which  he  calls  Fascicle  III,  the  words  stand  :  "and  some /preordained  to 
everlasting  death. '" 


26  i  TH  HJ  PR  ESB  TTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  RE  VIE  W. 

shall  stand  without  alteration.  Mr.  Whitakers  enters  his  dissent."" 
It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  words  in  which  Mr.  Whita- 
ker  desired  some  alteration  are  the  closing  words  of  section  3  ;  and 
the  suggestion  will  perhaps  present  itself  that  he  was  only  per- 
sisting at  this  final  opportunity  in  pressing  the  desire  of  those 
who  wished  these  words  omitted  in  the  earlier  debate  (November 
3,  1615).  It  certainly  is  not  said  that  Mr.  Whitaker  wished  the 
words  omitted,  but  only  that  "  he  moved  an  alteration  in  these 
words  " — and  what  alteration  he  desired  we  have  no  means  of  ascer- 
taining. And  it  would  appear  that  he  met  with  little  or  no  support 
for  his  proposition.  The  Assembly  not  only  rejected  his  motion, 
but  he  alone  entered  dissent.  But  it  is  at  least  not  impossible 
that  he  was  here  only  carrying  to  its  latest  stage  the  debate  of 
November  3  for  the  omission  of  these  words. 

In  that  case,  we  should  learn  that  there  were  some  in  the 
Assembly — or  perhaps  only  one,  as  Mr.  Whitaker  is  alone  in  his 
dissent  on  September  23,  1616,  and  may  have  been  equally  alone 
in  the  contention  of  November  3,  1615 — who  desired  that  the  doc- 
trine of  reprobation  should  not  be  so  sharply  stated  in  section  3. 
"What  their  —  or  his — reasons  for  so  desiring  v/ere,  we  do  not 
know.*  But  we  should  equally  learn  that  the  Assembly  was  not 
only  decided,  but  we  may  say  unusually  decided  in  its  deter- 
mination to  have  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  clearly  asserted  in  this 
its  appropriate  place  in  the  Confession.  We  must  not  fail  to 
observe  that  the  matter  was  pressed  to  a  vote,  to  the  sharpest  of 
decisions,  and  to  a  recorded  dissent :  and  we  must  not  fail  to  note 
the  significance  of  this.  Says  Dr.  Mitchell  :f  "  So  far  as  appears 
from  the  minutes,  the  various  articles  of  the  Confession  were 
passed  by  the  Assembly  all  but  unanimously.  On  some  occasions, 
when  dissent  was  indicated,  even  by  one  or  two  of  the  members, 
the  wording  of  the  article  they  objected  to  was  so  modified  as  to 
satisfy  them.  The  main  occasions  on  which  this  policy  was  not 
followed  were  on  l:th  September,  1615,  with  regard  to  Dr.  Bur- 

*  Whitaker  was  a  high  Calviuist  (see  below,  p.  271),  but  beyond  that  we  know 
too  little  of  his  personal  opinions  to  permit  ourselves  any  conjectures  as  to  his  posi- 
tion on  the  special  point  here  raised.  He  left  little  in  print  behind  him  :  Brook 
{Lives  of  the  Puritans,  III,  190*5'.)  supposes  that  only  a  few  occasional  sermons  were 
published  by  him,  and  names  only  three.  He  was  a  Cambridge  Master  of  Arts,  and  a 
good  scholar  and  unremitting  in  his  labors  as  a  preacher.  See  also  Mr.  Lupton's 
notice  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  suh.nom.  It  is  illustrative  of  how 
little  even  the  best  scholars  keep  in  mind  the  most  important  matters  of  Puritan 
(Presbyterian)  history  in  England  that  Mr.  Lupton  can  print  such  a  sentence  as 
this:  "  When  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines  was  convened  in  June,  1643, 
he  was  one  of  the  first  members  elected,  and  in  1647  was  appointed  Moderator." 
Yet  he  had  Brook's  notice  before  his  eyes  (p.  191). 

t  Baird  Lectures,  p.  373. 


TEE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       269 

gess'  dissent  from  the  resolution  of  the  Assembly  to  leave  out  the 
word  '  Blessed,'  retained  both  in  the  English  and  Irish  Articles, 
before  the  name  of  the  Virgin  Mother  of  our  Lord  ;  on  23d  Sep- 
tember, 1646,  with  regard  to  Mr.  Whitaker's  dissent  from  the 
words  '  foreordained  to  everlasting  death;'  and  on  21st  October, 
1646,  with  regard  to  the  dissent  of  several  of  the  ludepeodents 
from  the  insertion  in  a  Confession  of  Faith  of  certain  parts  of  §  3, 
chap,  xxiii."  We  must  esteem  the  clear  and  firm  statement  of 
the  doctrine  of  foreordination  to  death,  therefore,  a  matter 
which  the  Assembly  deemed  of  the  highest  importance.  When  it 
was  proposed  to  omit  the  words  (November  3,  161:5)  the  proposi- 
tion was  defeated  :  and  when,  at  the  eleventh  hour,  Mr.  Whitaker 
returned  to  the  charge  and  proposed  at  least  some  alteration  in 
the  words,  it  was  resolved  shortly  :  "  The  words  shall  stand  with- 
out alteration,"  and  Mr.  Whitaker  was  left  to  enter  his  dissent. 
It  is  very  clear  that  the  Assembly  by  a  very  large  majority — doubt- 
less, in  this  case  too,  practically  unanimously — deemed  that  import- 
ant concerns  were  guarded  by  these  words. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  no  debates  and  no  dissents  are  noted  on  §  4. 

5.  Only  the  slightest  hint  of  debate  on  section  5  is  pre- 
served. We  have  already  observed  the  possibility,  but  hardly 
probability,  of  the  notice  of  debate  on  "  the  article  of  Predestina- 
tion "  mentioned  on  October  3,  1645,  referring  to  the  fifth  section. 
If  that  be  set  aside  we  have  only  the  entry  of  October  17  :  "  Report 

from  the  first  Committee  concerning  Predestination Debate 

upon  the  report  of  the  first  Committee  concerning  Predestination. 
Debate  about  those  words,  '  unto  everlasting  glory,'  whether  they 
be  not  superfluous."  The  words  were  retained — to  the  enrich- 
ment of  the  statement.  But  the  raising  of  the  question  of  their 
superfluity  is  another  indication  of  the  severe  terseness  of  the 
style  given  by  the  Assembly  to  this  chapter — in  contrast  with  the 
greater  elaborateness,  if  not  exactly  elaboration,  of  the  language 
of  the  underlying  Irish  Articles. 

6.  It  was  about  the  sixth  section,  however — the  section  in  which 
is  concentrated  the  ordo  salutis  of  the  Westminster  divines — that 
debate  most  gathered.  From  before  October  20  to  October  31 
the  Assembly  was  occupied  with  this  great  statement,  and  every 
element  of  it  was  subjected  to  the  closest  scrutiny.  Especially  did 
the  discussion  expand  around  the  three  points  of  the  unity  of  the 
decree  and  the  relation  respectively  of  the  decrees  concerning  the 
fall  and  redemption  to  the  decree  of  election.  We  do  not  know 
precisely  when  debate  on  this  section  was  first  begun.  The  first 
notice  of  it  (October  20)  runs  already  :  "  Proceed  iu  the  debate 
about  permission  of  man's  fall ;  about  '  the  same  decree.'  "     Nor 


270  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

can  we  reconstruct  in  its  entirety  the  original  form  of  the  section. 
It  seems  to  have  began  somewhat  thus  :  "  As  God  hath  appointed 
the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  He,  to  bring  this  to  pass,  ordained  by 
the  same  decree  to  permit  man  to  fall,  etc.;"  and  the  debate  first 
turned  on  the  phrase  "  the  same  decree,"  and  then  on  the  phrase 
"  to  bring  this  to  pass."  To  meet  the  objection  to  the  former 
phrase,  for  which  he  would  not  contend — for,  said  he,  "  when  that 
word  is  leit  out,  is  it  not  a  truth,  and  so  every  one  may  enjoy 
his  own  sense  " — Mr.  Gillespie  proposed  that  the  statement  should 
be  modified  so  as  to  read  :  ' '  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect 
unto  glory,  so  hath  He  for  the  same  end  ordained  to  permit 
man  to  fall."  This  involved,  however,  the  retention,  in  other 
language,  of  the  idea  involved  in  the  phrase  "  to  bring  this  to 
pass,"  which  the  Assembly  was  not  disposed  to  insist  on.  A 
formula  offered  by  Mr.  Eeynolds  on  October  2 1  accordingly  found 
more  favor.  It  runs  as  follows  :  "As  God  hath  appointed  the 
elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  He  by  the  same  eternal  and  most  free 
purpose  of  His  will  foreordained  all  the  means  thereunto,  which 
He  in  His  counsel  is  pleased  to  appoint  for  the  executing  of  that 
decree  ;  wherefore  they  who  are  endowed  with  so  excellent  a 
benefit',  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  called  in  according  to  God's 
purpose."  This  formula  preserves  the  mention  of  the  fall  of 
Adam,  as  had  just  been  ordered,  but  also  the  phrase  "  the  same 
decree,"  which  had  been  debated  but  the  omission  of  which  was 
not  yet  determined  fully  on,  and  meets  by  a  happy  turn  the  deter- 
mination that  the  words  "to  bring  this  to  pass"  should  not 
stand.  Whether,  however,  this  formula  was  simply  (as  we  have 
presumed)  the  original  formula,  modified  to  meet  these  orderings, 
or  an  entirely  new  one  wrought  out  by  Mr.  Reynolds  himself,  we 
have  no  sure  means  of  determining.  Immediately  after  the  entry  : 
"  Mr.  Reynolds  offered  something, "  with  the  text  as  given  above, 
it  is  added  :  "  Mr.  Chambers  offered  something  " — but  no  hint  is 
given  of  what  it  was,  possibly  because  the  diftering  reception 
given  to  the  propositions  of  the  two  advertised  the  scribe  that  it 
was  Mr.  Reynolds'  and  not  Mr.  Chambers'  offering  that  would 
form  the  basis  of  subsequent  debate.  In  any  event,  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds' paper  appears  to  register  the  results  of  the  debate  so  far, 
and  to  lay  the  basis  for  farther  advance. 

So  far,  we  may  say  then,  two  things  had  been  settled  about  this, 
section  :  it  should  mention  the  fall  of  Adam  and  it  should  not  insist 
on  emphasizing  the  unity  of  the  divine  decree.  In  both  matters  the 
decision  had  been  arrived  at  in  the  interest  of  what  we  may  call, 
perhaps,  comprehension — though  this  must  be  understood,  of 
course,  as  a  generic  Calvinistic  and  not  universalistic  Christian  com- 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       271 

preliension.  The  Assembly  had  been  led  in  this  policy  by  the 
strictest  Calvinists  in  the  body.  The  sharp  assertion  of  the  same- 
ness of  the  decree  ordaining  both  the  end  and  the  means  (for  it  was 
on  this  point  of  the  unity  of  the  decree  alone  that  the  debate  turned) 
was  advocated  by  Mr.  Seaman,  who  seems  to  be  most  concerned 
about  the  possible  misapprehension  of  the  omission  ;  by  Mr.  Whit- 
aker,  who  takes  the  high  ground  that  it  is  true,  and  therefore  would 
best  be  expressed — an  indication,  by  the  way,  of  the  sound  Calvin- 
ism of  the  man  who  later  was  so  strenuous  to  have  some  alteration 
(we  know  not  what,  but  surely  from  this  we  can  infer  no  anti-Calvin- 
istic  one)  made  in  the  last  words  of  the  third  section  ;  and  by  Mr. 
Palmer,  who  fears  to  be  brought  into  a  worse  snare  by  leaving  it  out 
than  could  arise  from  inserting  it.  Mr.  Seaman  urged  that ' '  if  those 
words,  '  in  the  same  decree,'  be  left  out,  will  involve  us  in  a  great 
debate;"  that  "all  the  odious  doctrine  of  Arminians  is  from 
their  distinguishing  of  the  decrees,  but  our  divines  say  they  are 
one  and  the  same  decree  ;  "  that  the  censure  the  Eemonstrants  lay 
under  for  making  two  decrees  concerning  election  would  lie  equally 
against  making  two  decrees  of  the  end  and  means,  Mr.  Whita- 
ker  simply  urged  that  with  reference  to  time  all  decrees  are 
"  simul  and  semel ;  in  eterno  there  is  not  prior  q,\\(\  poster ior'f  that 
though  the  conceptions  of  the  Divines  were  very  various  about  the 
decrees,  there  was  no  reason  why  the  truth  should  not  be  frankly 
asserted.  The  other  side  was  taken  by  men  like  Eutherford,  Gil- 
lespie, Gouge,  Eeynolds  and  Calamy.  They  did  not  deny  the  truth 
meant  to  be  expressed  in  the  phrase  "  the  same  decree,"  but  rather 
unanimously  affirmed  it.  But  the  keynote  of  their  discussion  was 
expressed  by  Gillespie  when  he  said:  "  When  that  word  is  left 
out,  is  it  not  a  truth,  and  so  every  man  may  enjoy  his  own  sense," 
and  by  Eeynolds  when  he  remarked  :  ' '  Let  us  not  put  in  disputes 
and  scholastic  things  into  a  Confession  of  Faith."  Obviously  it  was 
generic  Calvinism  they  were  intent  on  asserting  and  not  any  par- 
ticular variety  of  it.  And  this  is  given  point  to  by  another  inci- 
dent of  the  debate.  Besides  the  mere  phrase  "  the  same  decree," 
its  sameness  was  asserted  in  the  original  draft  by  the  concatena- 
tion of  the  clauses.  We  do  not  knov/  precisely  how  its  language 
ran  at  first :  but  apparently  it  was,  as  we  have  seen,  something 
like  this  :  "  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath 
He  to  bring  this  to  pass  ordained  by  the  same  decree  to  permit 
man  to  fall  " — and  so  on  enumerating  the  several  steps  in  the  ordo 
decretorum.  "  I  question,"  remarked  Mr.  Calam}',  "  that  '  to 
bring  this  to  pass  ; '  we  assert  massa  pura  in  this.  I  desire  that 
nothing  be  put  in  one  way  or  other  ;  it  makes  the  fall  of  man  to 
be  medium  execulionis  decreti.^^     It  was  in  the   same   sense   that 


272  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Rutherford  wished  to  amend  by  saying  simply  "  God  hath  also 
decreed."     "  It  is  very  probable  but  one  decree,"  he  added,  "  but 

whether  fit  to  express  it  in  a   Confession  of    Faith "     A 

remark  of  Gillespie's  would  seem  to  show  that  he  was  not  quite 
willing  to  yield  in  this  matter  ;  let  there  be  no  dispute  indeed  about 
a  word,  he  seems  to  say — but  the  matter  involved  is  another  thing  : 
"  Say,  '  For  the  same  end  God  hath  ordained  to  permit  man  to 
fall.'  ....  This  shows  that  in  ordine  naturse,  God  ordaining  man 
to  glory  goes  before  His  ordaining  to  permit  man  to  fall."  The 
appearance  is  that  Gillespie  desired  the  Confession  to  be  com- 
mitted not  indeed  to  the  supralapsarian  position — for  that  occupies 
narrower  ground  than  his  words  need  to  imply — but  to  the  inclu- 
sion of  the  fall  of  Adam  explicitly  in  the  means  to  glorification. 

Counsels  of  moderation  thus  prevailing  as  the  result  of  this 
debate  of  Monday  (October  20),  the  Assembly  listened  on  Tues- 
day morning  (October  21)  to  the  "  report  made  from  the  first  Com- 
mittee sitting  before  the  Assembly,"  and  resolved  "  that  mention 
be  made  of  man's  fall ;"  and  "  that  those  words,  '  to  bring  this 
to  pass,'  shall  not  stand."  That  is  to  say,  it  resolved  to  include 
man's  fall  within  the  decree  of  God,  but  not  to  assert  it  to  be 
means  "to  the  end  of  glorification.  It  was  then  that  Mr.  Reynolds' 
statement  as  already  quoted  was  brought  before  them  and  the 
debate  commenced  afresh  from  this  new  beginning.  By  what 
process  this  statement  was  ultimately  reduced  to  the  exquisite 
formula  that  was  finally  passed  we  are  not  informed.  Considerable 
adjustment  was  needed.  The  first  sentence  required  the  omission 
not  only  of  the  word  "  same,"  but  also  of  its  whole  concluding- 
clause  :  "  which  He  in  His  counsel  is  pleased  to  appoint  for  the 
executing  of  that  decree  '' — a  redundancy  which  must  have  been 
intolerable  to  this  tersely  speaking  Assembly.  Similarly,  while 
the  structure  of  the  second  section  is  adopted,  and,  of  course,  the 
happy  phrase — cutting  all  knots — "  being  fallen  in  Adam,"  the 
language  is  wholly  recast  in  the  interests  of  clear  and  succinct 
statement :  thus  the  long  clause  (derived  from  the  English  Articles) 
"  who  are  endowed  with  so  excellent  a  benefit  "  gives  way  to  the 
simple  "  who  are  elected;"  and  the  Scriptural  "  called  according 
to  God's  purpose"  to  the  more  technical  "effectually  called," 
with  an  additional  definition  of  that  unto  which  they  are  called  and 
by  what  divine  agency.  Thence  the  statement  proceeds  through 
the  items  of  the  ordo  salutis.  So  far  as  we  can  trace  it,  this  is  the 
history  of  the  formulation  of  this  beautiful  section — wise  in  its 
insertions  and  omissions  alike. 

There  remains,  however,  a  very  important  clause  of  the  section 
about  which  apparently  the  keenest  and  certainly  the   most  fully 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       273 

reported  of  all  the  debates  on  this  chapter  was  held — the  final 
sentence  of  the  section,  which  affirms  :  ' '  Neither  are  any  other 
redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified, 
and  saved,  but  the  elect  only."  The  discussion  of  this  statement 
was  formally  ordered  at  the  close  of  the  session  on  Tuesday,  Octo- 
ber 21,  1645  :  "  Ordered — To  debate  the  business  about  Redemp- 
tion of  the  elect  only  by  Christ  to-morrow  morning."  The  debate, 
begun  Friday  morning,  October  22,  and  continued  at  least  to  Octo- 
ber 31,  constitutes  one  of  the  most  notable  debates  reported  in  the 
Minutes,  and  certifies  us  that  the  closing  sentence  of  the  sixth  sec- 
tion is  one  of  the  most  deliberate  findings  of  the  Assembly. 

The  protagonist  in  the  debate  was  Mr.  Calamy,  who  opened  it 
with  the  enunciation  of  what  is  known  as' the  "  Hypothetical  Uni- 
versalistic  "  schema — a  well-guarded  expression  of  this  theory,  cer- 
tainly, and  even,  perhaps,  a  somewhat  modified  expression  of  it, 
but  also  a  clearly-cut  and  fully  developed  enunciation  of  universal 
redemption  with  limited  application.  "  I  am  far  from  univer- 
sal redemption  in  the  Arminian  sense,"  he  said  ;  "  but  that  that  I 
hold  is  in  the  sense  of  our  divines  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  that 
Christ  did  pay  a  price  for  all— absolute  intention  for  the  elect, 
conditional  intention  for  the  reprobate  in  case  they  do  believe — 
that  all  men  should  be  salvabiles,  non  obstante  lapsu  Adami  .... 
that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  only  die  sufficiently  for  all,  but  God  did 
intend,  in  giving  of  Christ,  and  Christ  in  giving  Himself,  did 
intend  to  put  all  men  in  a  state  of  salvation  in  case  they  do 
believe."  Again,  "  The  Arminians  hold  that  Christ  did  pay  a 
price  for  this  intention  only,  that  all  men  should  be  in  an  equal 
state  of  salvation.     They  say  Christ  did  not  purchase  any  impe- 

trartion This  universality   of    R[edemption]  " — that  is,  of 

■course,  that  which  he,  in  opposition  to  this  Arminian  construction, 
advocates — ' '  doth  neither  intrude  upon  either  the  doctrine  of  special 
election  or  special  grace."  Still  again  :  "In  the  point  of  election, 
I  am  for  special  election  ;    and  for  reprobation,  I  am  for  massa  cor- 

rupta Those  to  whom  He  ....  by  virtue  of  Christ's  death, 

there  is  ea  administratio  of  grace  to  the  reprobate,  that  they  do  wil- 
fully damn  themselves."  If  we  were  to  take  these  statements  just  as 
they  stand,  we  should  probably  be  obliged  to  say  that  Calamy' s  posi- 
tion was  characterized  by  the  following  points :  1 .  It  denied  the  Ar- 
minian doctrine  of  a  universal  redemption  for  all  men  alike,  without 
exception,  on  condition  of  faith,  which  faith  is  to  be  man's  own  act 
by  virtue  of  powers  renewed  through  a  universal  gift  of  sufficient 
grace.  2.  It  denied  equally  the  Amyraldian  doctrine  of  a  uni- 
versal redemption  for  all  men  alike,  without  exception,  on  condition 
of    faith,    which  faith,  however,  is  the   product  of  special  grace 


274  THE  PEE  SB  YTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  RE  VIE  W. 

given  to  the  elect  alone,  so  that  only  the  elect  can  fulfill  the  con- 
dition. '6.  It  affirmed  a  double  intention  on  Christ's  part  in  Tlis 
work  of  redemption— declaring  that  He  died  absolutely  for  the 
elect  and  conditionally  for  the  reprobate.  Theologically  his  posi- 
tion, which  has  its  closest  affinities  with  the  declarations  of  the 
English  Divines  at  Dort,  was  an  improvement  upon  the  Amyral- 
dian  ;  but  logically  it  was  open,  perhaps,  to  all  the  objections  which 
were  fatal  to  it  as  well  as  to  others  arising  from  its  own  lack  of 
consistency. 

Both  sets  of  objections  were  made  to  tell  upon  it  in  the 
debate.  For  example,  the  fundamental  objection  to  all  schemes 
of  conditional  redemption,  that  it  is  inapplicable  to  more  than 
a  moiety  of  the  human  race,  was  early  pressed  upon  him 
with  telling  effect.  Mr.  Palmer  asked  subtly  :  "I  desire  to  know 
whether  he  will  understand  it  de  omni  homine^^ — i.e.,  whether 
Christ  died  for  every  man — of  all  sorts  and  in  all  conditions — only 
conditionally  on  the  exercise  of  faith.  Mr.  Calamy  must  have 
felt  hard  pressed  indeed  when  he  answered  simply,  "  De  aduUis.^^ 
"Where,  then,  shall  those  that  die  in  infancy  appear  ?  On  the 
other  hand,  Mr.  Keynolds  struck  a  deadly  blow  at  the  peculiar 
form  which  Mr.  Calamy  had  given  his  doctrine  when  he  remarked 
that  to  assert  that  Christ,  besides  dying  absolutely  for  the  elect, 
died  also  conditionally  for  the  reprobate — in  case  they  do  believe  — 
is  to  say  He  died  for  them  "  upon  a  condition  that  they  cannot 
perform,  and  God  never  intends  to  give  them."  It  cannot  seem 
strange  to  us,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Calamy  was  not  able  to  preserve 
in  the  debate  his  somewhat  artificial  middle  position,  and  is  found 
arguing  roundly  for  universal  redemption  of  all  and  several,  with- 
out distinction,  at  least  in  the  Amyraldian  sense.  • 

To  Calamy 's  aid  in  the  debate  there  came  Messrs.  Seaman,  Mar- 
shall and  Vines  :  while  he  was  opposed  by  Palmer,  Eeynolds,  Gil- 
lespie, Rutherford,  Wilkinson,  Burgess,  Lightfoot,  Price,  Goodwin 
and  Harris.  On  the  first  day  the  debate  turned  on  the  ordo  decre- 
torum.  Gillespie  held  it  firmly  to  this  broader  question,  and  from 
that  point  of  view — "  that  there  is  a  concatenation  of  the  death  of 
Christ  with  the  decrees  " — asked  significantly  "  a  parte  post  what 
follows  upon  that  conditional  redemption.' '  On  the  authority  of  the 
Dordrechtan  divines,  to  whom  Calamy  had  appealed,  Eeynolds 
explained  that  "  the  Synod  intended  no  more  than  to  declare  the 
sufficiency  of  the  death  of  Christ  ;  it  is  a  pretium  in  -se,  of  suffi- 
cient value  to  all — nay,  ten  thousand  worlds,"  and  that  "  to  be 
salvable  is  a  benefit,  and  therefore  belongs  only  to  those  that  have 
an  interest  in  Christ."  On  the  second  day  the  debate  turned  rather 
on  the  Scriptural  argument,  and  Calamy  rested  his  case  on  the 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       275 

two  texts,  John  iii.  16  and  'MrtIz  xvi.  15.  From  tlie  former  ho 
argued  that  it  was  on  account  of  the  love  of  (iod  for  the  world  at 
large,  not  for  the  elect  only,  that  Christ  came — as  the  "  whosoever 
believeth  "  sufficiently  indicates.  From  the  latter  he  argued  that 
a  universal  redemption  is  requisite  to  give  verity  to  the  universal 
offer.  Those  who  essayed  to  answer  him  exhibit  minor  differences, 
especially  in  the  detailed  exegesis  of  John  iii.  16.  Gillespie  and 
Eutherford  understand  that  when  it  is  said  God  so  loved  the  world, 
it  is  the  elect  scattered  everyAvhere  in  the  world  that  are  intended  : 
Lightfoot  and  Harris  understand  that  "the  world"  in  contra- 
distinction from  the  Jews  is  meant  ;  and  Price  very  wisely  remarks 
that  even  if  mankind  at  large  be  meant  it  does  not  at  all  follow 
that  Christ  died  equally  and  alike  for  every  individual — there  is  no 
inconsequence  in  saying  that  it  was  because  of  His  love  for  the 
world  that  He  gave  His  very  life  for  the  multitudes  He  chose  out 
of  this  world  to  save.  However  the  term"  the  world  "  be  taken, 
therefore,  the  result  of  the  debate  showed  that  no  conclusion  could 
be  drawn  from  this  text  to  the  universahty  of  redemption.  As  to 
Mark  xvi.  15,  Eutherford  pointed  out  at  once  that  the  argument 
that  the  universality  of  the  offer  of  the  Gospel  necessarily  inferred 
precedent  universality  of  redemption  as  its  ground  was  obviously 
unsound  inasmuch  as  it  proved  too  much — the  same  argument  is 
equally  applicable  to,  say,  justification.  The  promise  of  justifica- 
tion is  as  much  included  in  the  Gospel  as  the  promise  of  redemp- 
tion :  shall  we  say,  then,  that  we  cannot  preach  the  Gospel  to  all 
except  on  the  supposition  of  a  precedent  universal  justification  ? 
To  this  Mr.  Seaman  could  reply  only  by  repeating  the  shibboleth 
that  what  Christ  did  was  to  make  all  men  only  salvable,  as  Adam 
had  made  all  men  damnable — which  one  cannot  believe  was  much 
of  an  aid  to  the  cause  he  was  advocating,  as  it  involved  a  seriously 
low  view  of  the  effect  of  Adam's  fall  as  well  as  of  Christ's 
redemption  :  surely  there  were  few  in  the  Assembly  who  would 
assent  to  the  proposition  that  the  whole  effect  of  Adam's  sin 
was  to  render  men  liable  to  be  condemned,  instead  of  bring-inff 
them  under  actual  condemnation,  and  the  whole  effect  of  Christ's 
work  was  to  render  men  capable  of  salvation,  instead  of  actually 
saving  them.  Gillespie,  however,  as  was  usual  with  that  brilliant 
young  man,  put  his  finger  here,  too,  on  the  technical  Haw  in  Cala- 
my's  reasoning  by  insisting  on  the  distinction  between  the  voluntas 
decreti  and  voluntas  mandaii :  "  The  command  doth  not  hold  out 
God's  intentions  ;  otherwise  God's  command  to  Abraham  con- 
cerning sacrificing  of  his  son "     Mr.  Marshall,  who  with 

Mr.  Vines  gave  a  support  to  Mr.  Calaray  which  was  evidently  as 
effective  and   wire  as  that  of    Mr.    Seaman    recms    the    ojiposi'.e, 


276  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

acutely  replies  to  this  that  "  there  is  not  only  a  mandatum  but  a 
promise  " — but  obviously  this  was  a  good  rejoinder  rather  than 
a  solid  distinction.  The  weight  of  the  debate  was  clearly  on  the 
side  of  the  proposition  proposed,  and  on  that  score  alone  we  can- 
not feel  surprise  that  it  was  retained  in  the  Confession. 

The  interest  of  the  debate  to  us  lies  in  the  revelation  which  it 
gives  us  of  the  presence  in  the  Assembly  of  an  influential  and  able, 
but  apparently  small,  body  of  men  whose  convictions  lay  in  the 
direction  of  the  modified  Calvinism  which  had  been  lately  pro- 
mulgated by  Cameron  and  Amyraut  for  the  express  purpose  of 
finding  a  place  for  a  universal  redemption  in  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem. For  the  origin  of  this  party  Dr.  Mitchell*  would  point  us 
to  English  sources  :  but  Baillie  especially  mentions  Amyraut  in 
this  connection  ;t  and  it  would  seem  that  it  was  Amyraut  and 
Cameron — both  of  whom  Gillespie  mentions  in  this  debate — whom 
men  had  especially  in  mind  during  the  discussion  ;  and  it  would 
seem  further  to  be  clear  that  while  the  adherents  of  this  univer- 
salistic  view  of  the  atonement  in  the  Assembly  held  it  with  Brit- 
ish moderation,  and  were  not  prepared  to  go  all  lengths  with  the 
French  divines  who  had  lately  promulgated  it  with  such  force, 
they  yet  looked  upon  them  as  of  their  school  and  sought  support 
from  them.  The  result  of  the  debate  was  a  refusal  to  modify  the 
Calvinistic  statement  in  this  direction — or  perhaps  we  should 
rather  say  the  definitive  rejection  of  the  Amyraldian  views 
and  the  adoption  of  language  which  was  precisely  framed  to 
exclude  them.  Dr.  Mitchell,  reviving  an  old  contention,  suggests 
indeed  that  unless  the  clause  of  the  Confession  in  question  be  read 
disjunctively  rather  than,  as  it  is  actually  phrased,  conjunctively, 
it  will  not  operate  for  the  exclusion  of  Amyraldians.:}:  It  is  not 
clearly  obvious,  however,  that  the  word  "and"  here  binds  the 
several  items  of  the  enumeration  so  closely  together  as  to  make  it 
appear  that  all  that  is  affirmed  is  only  that  the  whole  of  this 
process  takes  place  in  the  case  of  the  elect  only  :  the  natural 
sense  of  the  clause  is  clearly  that  no  one  of  the  transactions 
here  brought  together  is  to  be  affirmed  of  the  non-elect.  And  this 
impression  is  increased  by  the  broader  context,  not  to  speak    of 

*  Minutes,  p.  iv.  sq. 

t  And  his  Letters  have  a  number  of  references  to  the  Amyraldian  controversy  and 
the  pressing  need  of  a  telling  refutation  of  Amyraut,  which  cannot  mean  anything 
else  than  that  it  was  from  him  that  the  Assembly  felt  that  the  dissenting  opinions 
emanated. 

X  Minutes,  p.  Ivii.  This  contention,  together  with  the  other  expedients  which 
have  been  made  use  of  by  advocates  of  universal  atonement  to  explain  away  the 
Confessional  statement,  is  judiciously  examined  by  Dr.  Cunningham  in  his  Histori- 
cal Theology,  II,  327  sq. 


THE  MAKING  OF  TUE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       277 

the  parallel  passages  in  viii.  3  and  5.*  It  might  seem  somewhat 
more  to  the  point,  possibly,  to  recall  that  in  this  section  the  lan- 
guage is  so  ordered  as  to  seem  to  deal  with  the  actual  ordo  salutis 
rather  than  directly  with  the  ordo  decretorum.  It  is  asserted  that 
the  ordo  salutis  is  the  result  of  the  decreeing  of  the  means  by 
which  the  elect  are  brought  to  glory.  But  what  is  subsequoutly 
asserted»is  that  none  but  the  elect  are  (actually)  redeemed  by 
Christ,  effectually  called,  etc. — the  mind  being  abstracted  for  the 
moment  from  the  intention  to  the  performance.  The  "Westmin- 
ster Amyraldians — if  we  may  venture  so  to  call  them — had,  of 
course,  freely  admitted  the  distinction  between  the  elect  and  non- 
elect  in  the  application  :  it  was  only  in  the  impetration  that  they 
disputed  it :  and  it  might  perhaps  seem  to  them  possible  to  con- 
fess that  though  Christ  had  died  for  all,  the  merits  of  His  death 
had  actually  been  applied  only  to  some,  and  to  contend  that  only 
this  is  actually  expressed  by  saying  that  none  but  the  elect  "  are 
redeemed  by  Christ."  Even  this,  however,  appears  more  subtle 
than  satisfactory  ;  and  in  any  event  it  would  seem  quite  obvious  that 
the  Assembly  intended  to  state  in  this  clause  with  adequate  clear- 
ness their  reasoned  and  deliberate  conviction  that  the  decree  of 
election  lies  behind  the  decree  of  the  gift  of  Christ  for  redemption, 
and  that  the  latter  is  to  be  classed  as  one  of  the  means  for  the  exe- 
cution of  the  decree  of  election.  This  is  the  definite  exclusion  of 
the  Amyraldian  view,  and  anything  that  can  be  made  really  con- 
sistent with  this  conception  of  the  ordo  decretorum  will  be  found 
to  differ  fundamentally  from  Amyraldism.f 

7.  We  first  hear  of  the  seventh  section  in  the  Assembly  on 
November  6,  1645  ;  but  then  after  such  a  fashion  as  to  suggest 
that  it  had  already  been  before  the  Assembly  and  perhaps  may 
have  been  already  somewhat  debated.  We  read  simply  :  "  The 
paragraph  concerning  Eeprobation  referred  to  the  Committee,  to 
make  report  to-morrow  morning."     This  was  doubtless  a  special 

*  Dr.  Cunningham  remarks  that  the  followers  of  Cameron  made  their  contention 
that  they  were  not  condemned  by  the  Synod  of  Dort  turn  preciselj'  on  the  fact  that 
nothing  exactly  like  these  clauses  occurs  in  its  Canons  (loc.  cit.,  p.  329,  note). 

t  These  debates  are  discussed  with  the  care  and  prudence  habitual  to  him  by  Dr. 
Mitchell,  pp.  lii.  sq.  of  his  Introduction  to  the  Minutes;  and  he  says  theb<st 
and  mo.st  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  the  view  that  Amyraldism  is  not  peremptorily 
excluded  by  the  statements  finally  agreed  on.  They  are  also  discussed  in  some- 
what the  same  spirit  by  Dr.  E.  D.  ^lorris,  oj').  cit.,  pp.  187  sr/.,  with  which  should 
be  compared  the  remarks  on  pp.  38*2  Sfj.  Dr.  Morris,  though  claiming  for  the  Amy- 
raldians a  right  of  existence  under  the  "symbol,"  seems  to  be  unable  to  free 
himself  of  the  suspicion  that  the  letter  of  the  symbol  scarcely  justifies  it.  "NVe 
shoiTld  heartily  accord  with  such  a  conclusion — in  both  its  elements.  TVe  have 
already  referred  to  Dr.  Cunningham's  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the  Symbolic 
declarations  {Hist.  Theol.,  II,  321  sq.). 


278  IHE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Committee,  according  to  the  wont  of  the  Assemblv  in  such  in- 
stances. On  November  7  accordingly  we  read  :  "  Keport  made 
by  Mr.  Reynolds  about  Reprobation."     Then  again  on  November 

II  we  read:   "  Debate  the  report  of  Reprobation Debate 

about  that  '  sovereign  power.'  "  This  is  all  that  the  Minutes  tell 
us  about  the  passage  of  this  important  section  through  the  Assem- 
bly :  and  this  tells  us  practically  nothing,  except  that  it  was  care- 
fully scrutinized  and  debated.  We  may  conjecture  that  the  debate 
on  the  v.'ords  ' '  sovereign  power  ' '  turned  on  the  query  whether  some- 
thing more  or  other  than  "  power  "  might  not  wisely  be  indicated 
at  this  point :  but  this  is  mere  conjecture,  and  we  learn  only  that 
the  retention  of  the  phrase  just  as  it  now  stands  was  not  inad- 
vertent but  deliberate.  The  section  is  one  of  those  which, 
though  it  has  a  point  of  suggestion  in  the  Irish  Articles,  yet  as 
it  stands  is  the  independent  product  of  the  Assembly  :  and  it  cer- 
tainly does  credit  to  the  Assembly  by  the  combined  boldness  and 
prudence,  faithfulness  and  tenderness  of  its  sonorous  language.* 

*  At  p.  813  of  Dr.  E.  D.  Morris'  Theology  of  the  Westminster  Standards  we 
read  the  following  sentences  :  "Some  of  the  members  [of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly] held  with  Calamy  (Minutes,  153)  that  by  virtue  of  the  death  of  Christ  there 
is  an  administration  of  grace  even  to  the  reprobate,  so  that  they  in  rejecting  such 
grace  do  willfully  damn  themselves  as  a  massa  corrupta.  It  is  a  fact  of  consider- 
able significance  that,  ia  deference  to  this  opinion,  it  was  proposed  and  somewhat 
debated  in  the  Assembly  to  omit  any  statement  respecting  reprobation.  This 
would  have  been  in  harmony  with  the  course  pursued  in  the  framing  of  most  of  the 
continental  symbols,  which  are  quite  silent  respecting  the  relation  of  the  divine 
decree  to  those  who  reject  the  divine  grace.  The  statement  in  the  Confession 
finally  agreed  upon  (chap.  Ill  :  vii.)  simply  declares  that  God,  in  the  exercise  of 
His  sovereign  power  or  dominion  over  his  creatures,  passes  by  the  wicked  and 
unbelieving,  and  ordains  them  to  disfavor  and  wrath /or  their  sins,  to  the  praise  of 
his  glorious  justice."  This  seems  to  say  that  the  omission  of  chap.  Ill,  ^  vii,  was 
proposed  and  debated  in  the  Assembly  :  and  indeed  the  omission  of  all  statements 
respecting  reprobation.  There  is  nothing  in  the  3Iinutes  or,  so  far  as  known  to 
us,  in  any  witnessing  document  to  justify  such  an  affirmation.  It  would  seem  that 
Dr.  Morris  has  fallen  into  an  error  here — po-sibly  through  a  misinterpretation  of 
the  entries  in  the  Minutes  of  propositions  and  debates  concerning  the  language  of 

III  :  iii — of  which  we  have  spoken  above  (p.  2Q1  sq.).  This  misinterpretation  would 
be  rendered  easier  by  the  circumstances  that  the  former  of  these  entries  occurs  in 
the  Minutes  for  November  3,  and  is  noted  by  Dr.  31itchell  on  the  margin  as  a 
'  debate  on  reprobation,"  while  in  the  immediately  next  minute  we  have  a  refer- 
ence to  "the  paragraph  concerning  Eeprobation, "  doubtless  referring  to  §  7,  which 
was  certainly  under  debate  November  11.  Nevertheless  it  is  very  plain  that  it  is 
^  3  that  was  debated  on  November  3  :  and  even  if  that  were  not  so,  there  is  no 
ground  for  Dr.  Morris'  statement  that  "it  was  proposed  and  somewhat  debated  in 
the  Assembly  to  omit  any  statement  respecting  reprobation. "  To  desire  an  "  alter- 
ation in  the  woi'ds  'and  some  [fore-]ordaiued  to  everlasting  death,'  "  or  even  the 
omission  "  of  those  words,  '  fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death  '  " — the  extent  of  the 
notices  of  the  proposals  and  debates  in  question — is,  certainly,  something  extremely 
different  from  proposing  and  debating  the  omission  of  "  any  statement  respecting 
reprobation."     It  is  probably  safe  to  ?ay  that  the  attribution  to  any  Westminster 


THE  MAETNG  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       279 

8.  There  is  no  debate  signalized  on  section  8  in  its  first  passage 
through  the  Assembly.  But  when  the  chapter  came  back  again 
from  the  perfecting  Committee — June  18,  16i6 — wc  read  :  "  The 
Assembly  proceeded  in  debate  of  the  Article  '  of  God's  Eternal 
Decree  ;'  and  upon  debate  part  of  it  was  ordered.  Upon  debate 
about  the  last  clause  of  it,  concerning  the  handling  of  the  doctrine, 
it  was  Resolved  upon  the  Q.,  To  refer  this  till  to-morrow  morn- 
ing." We  find  nothing,  however,  on  the  subject  in  the  Minutes 
for  June  19  beyond  this  :  "  The  Assembly  proceeded  in  the  debate 
of    the   Confession  of    Faith ;     and  upon  debate,    that  head  '  of 

God's  Eternal  Decree'  was  ordered,  and  is  as  folio weth " 

We  are  therefore  only  certified  concerning  this  admirable  section 
that  it  was  the  object  of  the  care  of  the  Assembly  itself  up  to  the 
last  moment,  without  being  informed  what  precisely  in  the  course 
of  its  stately  march  engaged  its  latest  attention. 

From  this  survey,  by  means,  as  it  were,  of  specimen  bits  of  the 
debates  daring  which  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession  as  we 
have  it  was  beaten  out,  we  may  obtain  some  sort  of  idea  of  the 
labor  and  care  expended  on  it  by  the  Assembly.  The  survey  is 
certainly  calculated  to  enhance  our  idea  of  the  deliberateness  of  its 
formulation.  We  have  here  no  hasty  draft,  rushed  through  the 
body  at  breakneck  speed  and  adopted  at  the  end  on  the  credit  of 
the  Committee  that  had  drafted  it.  The  third  chapter  of  the 
Confession  is  distinctly  the  work  of  the  Assembly  itself,  and  comes 
to  us  as  the  well-pondered  and  thoroughly  adjusted  expression  of  the 
living  belief  of  that  whole  body.  The  differences  that  existed  be- 
tween the  members  were  not  smoothed  over  in  ambiguous  language. 
They  were  fully  ventilated.  Eoom  was  made  for  them  when  they 
were  considered  unimportant  and  mere  apices  loyici :  but  when 
they  concerned  matters  of  moment,  after  full  discussion,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Assembly — well-reasoned  and  fully  thought  out — as 
distinguished  from  that  of  individuals,  was  embodied  clearly  and 
firmly  in  the  document.  The  document  as  it  stands  is  thus  em- 
phatically the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Westminster  Assembly. 
AVe  cannot  say  that  this  or  that  clause  represents  this  or  that  party 
in  the  Assembly.  There  were  parties  in  the  Assembly,  and  they 
were  all  fully  heard  and  what  they  said  was  caref  ull}'-  weighed.  But 
no  merely  party  opinion  was  allowed  a  place  in  the  document. 

man  of  a  suggestion  to  omit  all  reference  to  reprobation  from  the  Confession  would 
have  struck  him  as  a  calumny  injurious  to  the  soundness  of  his  faith  if  not  of  his 
intelligence.  With  reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  other  Reformed  symbols  to  repro- 
bation see  the  January  number  of  this  Review,  pp.  49  sq.,  especially  pp.  121-126  : 
the  doctrine  of  reprobation  is  certainly  not  left  without  "any  statement  "  in  "the 
most"  of  them. 


280  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

When  it  came  to  voting  the  statements  there  to  be  set  down,  the 
Assembly  as  such  spoke  ;  and  in  speaking  it  showed  itself  capable 
of  speaking  its  own  mind.  It  is  doing  only  mere  justice  to  it,  there- 
fore, to  read  the  document  as  the  solemn  and  carefully  framed 
expression  of  its  reasoned  faith. 

In  the  appended  text  (to  follow  on  the  succeeding  pages)  we 
have  given,  in  the  middle  column,  as  nearly  as  we  can  make  it 
out  the  form  in  which  the  third  chapter  came  before  the  Assembly 
from  its  Committee,  marking  in  footnotes  the  chief  amendments 
which  were  made  in  it  in  the  process  of  reducing  the  earlier  draft 
to  the  form  in  which  it  left  the  Assembly  and  has  come  down  to 
us.  In  order  that  the  relations  of  this  first  reported  text  to  the 
Irish  Articles,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  completed  Westminster 
Confession,  on  the  other,  may  be  easily  apprehended,  we  have 
printed  these  two  texts  alongside  of  it,  and  we  have  sought  so  to 
present  them  that  the  eye  may  easily  unravel  the  historical  con- 
nections involved. 

pbincetqn.  Benjamin  B.  Warfield. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       281 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  THIRD  CHAPTER. 


IRISH  ARTICLES   (1G15).* 

in.  Of  God's  Eternal  Decree 

AND  Predestination. 

(11)  God,  from  all  eternity, 
did,  by  his  unchangeable  coun- 
sel, ordain  whatsoever  in  time 
should  come  to  pass  :  yet  so  as 
thereby  no  violence  is  offered 
to  the  wills  of  the  reasonable 
creatures,  and  neither  the  lib- 
erty nor  the  contingency  of  the 
second  causes  is  taken  away, 
but  established  rather. 


COMMITTEE'S  PROPOSAL. 
Of  God's  Eternal  Decree 
[and  Predestination].! 
[1]  God  from  all  eternity,  did 
by  the  most  holy  [and]  wisci 
counsel-  of  His  [own]^  will 
freely  and  unchangeablys  or- 
dain whatsoever  in  time'' 
should  come-''  to  pa.=s,  [2]  with- 
out any  foresight  of  anything 
without  himself  as  a  condition 
moving  him  thereunto  -fi  yet  so, 
as  thereby  neither  is  God  the 
author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence 
offered  to  the  will  of  the  crea- 
tures, nor  is  the  liberty  or  con- 
tingency of  second  causes 
taken  away  but  established 
rather. 


WESTMINSTER  CONFES- 
SION, t 

Of  God's  Eternal  Decrf.e. 

1.  GOD  FROM  ALL  ETER- 
NITY DID,  by  the  most  wise 
and  holy  counsel  of  his  own 
will,  freely  and  unchangeably 
ordain  iVhatsoever  comes  to 
pass  :  YET  so,  as  thereby  nei- 
ther is  God  the  author  of  sin, 
nor  is  violence  offered  to 

THE  will  of  the  CREATURES, 
NOR  IS  THE  LIBERTY  OR  CON- 
TINGENCY OF  SECOND  CAUSES 
TAKEN  AWAY,  BUT  RATHER  ES- 
TABLISHED. 

2.  Although  God  knows 
whatsoever  may  or  can  come 
to  pass  upon  all  supposed  con- 
ditions, yet  hath  he  not  de- 
creed anything  because  he 
foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that 
which  would  come  to  pass  upon 
such  conditions. 


*  This  exhibit  is  taken  without  change  from  the  Rev.  E.  Tyrrell  Green's  treatise 

on  The  TMrty-nine  Articles  and  the  Age  of  the  Reformation  (London  [1896]), 
pp.  354-355.  Phrases  in  Italics  are  derived  from  the  English  Articles  :  those  in 
thick-faced  type  from  the  Lambeth  Articles.  About  58  per  cent,  of  the  Irish  Arti- 
cles is  taken  from  Art.  XVII  of  the  English  Articles,  and  about  15  per  cent,  from 
the  Lambeth  Articles  :  leaving  about  27  per  cent,  of  new  matter. 

t  Phrases  in  Italics  are  derived  from  the  English  Articles  :  those  in  thick  type 
from  the  Lambeth  Articles :  those  in  small  Capitals  from  the  Irish  Articles. 
Phrases  derived  proximately  from  the  Irish  Articles  and  ultimately  from  the  English 
Articles  will  therefore  be  found  set  in  Italic  Capitals  :  those  derived  proximately 
from  the  Irish  Articles  and  ultimately  from  the  Lambeth  Articles  in  thick  Capitals. 
About  28  per  cent,  of  the  chapter  is  derived  matter  ;  about  72  per  cent,  being  orig- 
inal. All  but  a  trace  of  the  derived  matter  is  taken  from  the  Irish  Articles  :  and 
the  material  thus  taken  from  the  Irish  Articles  is  about  evenly  divided  between 
material  original  with  them,  and  material  ultimately  derived  from  the  English  or 
Lambeth  Articles — about  10  per  cent  of  tlie  whole  having  each  of  these  three 
sources  for  its  origin. 

X  Possibly  the  title  read  originally  as  in  the  Irish  Articles,  and  in  the  debate 
the  last  two  words,  here  bracketed,  were  omitted. 

1  Amended  to  "  most  wise  and  holy." 

2 Debates  signalized  on  these  words,  but  details  not  given. 

8  Moved  to  insert  here  "  without  respect  to  anything  foreseen,"  and  omit  corresponding  clause 
below:  "without  ....  thereunto." 

^"in  time  "  omitted. 

6  "should  come"  amended  to  "  comes." 

•After  several  attempts  to  adjust  this  clause :  "without  ....  thereunto,"  viz.:  (1)  l)y  prefix- 
ing "absolutely;"  (2)  by  omitting  "any;"  (3)  by  modifying  so  as  to  read  "not  being  moved 
thereunto  by  anything  without  himself ;"  (-1)  by  transferring  in  a  shortened  form  to  just  after 
"unchangeably"  (see  note  3)— it  was  removed  from  this  place  and  expanded  into  a  new  section 
— g  2 — of  the  completed  Confession. 


282 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 


IRISH  ARTICLES  (1615). 

(12)  By  the  same  eternal 
counsel,  God  hath  predesti- 
nated some  unto  life,  and 
reprobated  some  unto 
death:  of  both  which  there 
is  a  certain  number,  known 
only  to  God,  ivhich  can  nei- 
ther be  increased  nor  di- 
minished. 


(13)  Predeslination  to  life  is 
the  everlasting  purpose  oj  God, 
whereby,  before  the  foundations  of 
the  world  were  laid,  he  hath  con- 
stantly decreed  in  his  secret 
counsel  to  deliver  from  curse  and 
damnation  those  whom  he  hath 
chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind, 
and  to  bring  them  by  Christ  unto 
everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels 
made  to  honour. 

(14)  The  cause  moving 
God  to  predestinate  unto 
life,  is  not  the  foreseeing  of 
faith,  or  perseverance,  or 
good  works,  or  of  anything 
Avhich  is  in  the  person  pre- 
destinated, but  only  tlie 
good  pleasure  of  God  liim- 
self.  For  all  things  Ijeing  or- 
dained for  the  manifestation 
of  liis  glory,  and  his  glory  be- 
ing to  appear  both  in  the  worlis 
of  his  mercy  and  of  his  justice, 
it  seemed  good  to  his  heaveniy 
wisdom  to  choose  out  a  certain 
number,  towards  whom  he 
would  extend  his  undeserved 
mercy,  leaving  the  rest  to  be 
spectacles  of  his  justice. 

(15)  Such  as  are  predesti- 
nated unto  life,  be  called  ac- 
cording unto  Ood's  purpose  (his 
Spirit  working  in  due  season), 
and  through  grace  they  obey  the 
calling,  they  be  justified  freely, 
they  be  made  sons  of  God  by  adop- 
tion, they  be  made  like  the  image 
of  his  only-begotten  Son  Jesus 
Christ,  they  walk  religiously  in 
good  works,  and  at  length  by  God's 


COMMITTEE'S  PROPOSAL. 

[3]  By  the  decree  of  God,  for 
the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  are  pre- 
destinated unto  everlasting 
life,  and  others  foreordained  to 
everlasting  death.'  [4]  These 
angels  and  men,  thus  predesti- 
nated and  foreordained,  are 
particularly  and  unchangeably 
designed,  and  their  number  is 
so  certain  and  definite,  that  it 
cannot  be  either  increased  or 
diminished. 


[5]  Those  of  mankind  that 
are  predestinated  unto  life, 
God,  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  was  laid,  according 
to  his  eternal  and  immutable 
purpose,  and  the  secret  coun- 
sel and  good  pleasure  of  his 
will,  hath  chosen  in  ChrLst  un- 
to everlasting  glory, 8  out  of  his 
mere  free  grace  and  love,  with- 
out any  foresight  of  faith  or 
good  works,  or  perseverance  in 
either  of  them,  or  any  other 
thing  in  the  creature,  as  condi- 
tions, or  causes  moving  him 
thereunto  ;  and  all  to  the  praise 
of  his  glorious  grace. 


[6]  As  God  hath  appointed 
the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he 
to  bring  this  to  pass,^  by  the 
same  decree, i"  ordained  to  per- 
mit man  to  fall ;  [and  such  as 
are  predestinated  unto  life  ef- 
fectually to  call  to  faith  in 
Christ  by  his  Spirit  working  in 
due  season,  to  justify,  adopt, 
sanctify,  and  to  keep  by  his 
power  through  faith  unto  sal- 


AVE3TMINSTER  CONFES- 
SION. 

3.  By  the  decree  of  God,  for 
the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
SOME  men  and  angels  are 
PREDESTINATED  unto  ev- 
erlasting LiIFE,  and  others 
foreordained  TO  everlasting 
DEATH. 

4.  These  angels  and  men 
thus  predestinated  and  fore- 
ordained, are  particularly,  and 
unchangeably  designed,  and 
their  NUMBER  IS  so  CER- 
TAIN and  definite,  that  it 
CANNOT  BE  EITHER  IN- 
CREASED OR  DIMIN- 
ISHED. 

5.  Those  of  mankind  that 
are  predestinated  unto  life,  God, 
BEFORE  THE  FO  UNDA  TION 
OF  THE  WORLD  WAS  LAID, 
according  to  his  ETERNAL 
and  immutable  PURPOSE, 
AND  THE  SECRET  COUNSEL 
and  GOOD  PLEASURE  of 
his  will,  HATH  CHOSEN  IN 
CHRIST  UNTO  EVERLAST- 
ING glory,  out  of  his  mere  free 
grace  and  love,  WITH- 
OUT ANY  FORESIGHT 
OF  FAITH,  OB  GOOD 
WORKS,  OR  PERSEVER- 
ANCE in  either  of  them,  or 
any  other  thing  in  the  crea- 
ture, as  conditions,  or  causes 
moving  him  thereunto ;  and 
all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious 
grace. 


6.  As  God  hath  appointed 
the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he, 
by  the  eternal  and  most  free 
purpose  of  his  will,  foreor- 
dained all  the  means  there- 
unto. Wherefore  they  who  are 
elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam, 
are  redeemed  by  Christ,  ARE 
cflTectually  CALLED  unto 
faith  in  Christ  BY  HISS  PIRIl 
WORKING  INDUE  SEASON, 


7  Omission  of  the  words  "  foreordained  to  everlasting  death  "  proposed  but  refused :  Mr.  Whit- 
aker  proposed  some  alteration  in  them,  which  being  refused,  he  entered  his  dissent. 

8The  words  "unto  everlasting  glory"  were  challenged,  as  perhaps  superfluous,  but  retained. 

9  Ordered  not  to  express  "  to  bring  this  to  pass."  Mr.  Gillespie  proposed  to  substitute  for  the 
clause  "so  hath  he  ....  to  permit  man  to  fall:"  "For  the  same  end  God  hath  ordained  to 
permit  man  to  fall,"  but  it  did  not  prevail. 

10 Ordered  not  to  assert  "the  same  decree." 


THE  MAKING   OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.       283 


IRISH  ARTICLES  (1615), 

mercy  they  attain  to  everlasting 
felicity. 


But  such  as  are  not 
Xiredestinated  to  salvation 
shall  finally  he  condemned 
for  their  sins. 


(10)  The  godly  consideration 
of  predestination  and  our  election 
in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleas- 
ant, and  unspeakable  comfort  to 
godly  persons,  and  siichasfeelin 
Ihemselces  the  working  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  mortifying  the 
works  of  the  flesh,  and  their  earthly 
members,  and  drawing  up  their 
7}iinds  to  high  and  heavenly  things: 
as  well  because  it  doth  greatly  con- 
firm arid  establish  their  faith  of 
eternal  salvation  to  be  enjoyed 
through  Christ,  as  because  it  doth 
fervently  kindle  their  love  towards 
God.  And,  on  the  contrarj- 
side,  for  curious  and  carnal  per- 
sons lacking  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
to  have  continually  before  their 
eyes  the  sentence  of  God's  predes- 
tination is  very  dangerous. 

(17)  We  must  receive  God's 
promises  in  such  wise  as  they  be 
generally  set  forth  unto  us  in  holy 
Scripture  :  and  in  our  doings,  that 
will  of  God  is  to  be  followed  which 
we  have  expressly  declared  unto  us 
in  the  word  of  God. 


COMMITTEE'S  PROPOSAL. 

ration"]. 12  Neither  are  any 
other  redeemed  by  Clirist,  ef- 
fectually called,  justified, 
adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved, 
but  the  elect  only.^s 


[7]  The  rest  of  mankind, 
God  was  pleased,  according  to 
the  unsearchable  counsel  of 
his  own  will,  whereby  he  ex- 
tendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy 
as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory 
of  his  sovereign  power'^  over 
his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and 
to  ordain  them  to  dishonour 
and  wratli  for  their  sin,  to  tlie 
praise  of  liis  glorious  justice. 

[8]  The  doctrine  of  this  high 
mystery  of  predestination  is  to 
be  handled  with  special  pru- 
dence and  care,  that  men  at- 
tending to  the  will  of  God 
revealed  in  his  word,  and  yield- 
ing obedience  thereunto,  may, 
from  the  certainty  of  their 
effectual  vocation,  be  assured 
of  their  eternal  election.  So 
shall  this  doctrine  aftbrd  mat- 
ter of  praise,  reverence,  and 
admiration  of  God,  and  of  hu- 
mility, diligence,  and  abun- 
dant consolation  to  all  that  sin- 
cerely obey  the  Gospel. i^ 


WESTMINSTER  CONFES- 
SION. 
AREJUSTIFIED,  ADOPTED, 
sanctified,  and  kept  by  his 
power  through  faith  unto  sal- 
vation. Neither  are  any 
other  redeemed  by  Chri.st, 
efl'ectually  called,  justified, 
adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved, 
but  the  elect  only. 

7.  The  rest  of  mankind  God 
was  pleased,  according  to  tlie 
unsearchable  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  whereby  he  extend- 
eth  or  withholdeth  mercy,  as  he 
pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his 
sovereign  power  over  his  crea- 
tures, to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain 
them  to  dishonor  and  wrath, 
FOR  THEIR  SIN,  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  ju-stice. 

8.  The  doctrine  of  this  high 
mystery  of  predestination  is  to 
be  handled  with  special  pru- 
dence and  care,  that  men  A  T- 
TENDING  THE  WILL  OF 
GOD  REVEALED  IN  HIS 
WORD,  and  yielding  obedi- 
ence thereunto,  may,  from  the 
certainty  of  their  effectual  vo- 
cation, be  assured  of  their  eter- 
nal election.  So  shall  this  doc- 
trine afford  matter  of  praise, 
reverence,  and  admiration  of 
God, and  of  humility,  diligence, 
and  abundant  consolation  to  all 
that  sincerely  obey  the  gospel. 


11  The  bracketed  portion  is  conjectural,  to  fill  out  the  section  according  to  the  original  open- 
ing :  it  is  derived  from  the  Irish  Article. 

12  Mr.  Reynolds  proposed  the  following  form,  which  supplied  the  basis  on  which  the  final  form 
was  made  (the  underscored  words  were  altered  in  making  out  the  final  form):  "  As  God  hath 
appointed  tlie  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he  by  the  same<^  eternal  and  most  free  purpose  of  his  will,  ' 
foreordained  all  the  means  thereunto,  which  he  in  his  counsel  is  pleased  to  appoint  for  the  executing 
of  that  decree;^'  wherefore  they  who  are  endowed  with  so  excellent  a  benefit,'^  being  fallen  in  Adam 
&TG^  c&WqA.  in"  according  to  God's  purpose," f  QIC.  (»)  "  same  "  was  omitteil.  (*>)  This  clause  was 
omitted.  (0)  This  clause,  derived  from  Art.  xvii  of  XXXIX  Articles,  changed  into  "elected." 
(d)  "  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  "  was  inserted  here,  (e)  It  is  uncertain  whether  "in"  here  is  a 
mere  slip  due  to  a  mixture  of  the  two  expressions  "  according  to  "  and  "  in  accordance  with," 
or  whether  the  word  "Christ"  has  fallen  out  inadvertently  after  it.  (f)  "called  according  to 
God's  purpose  "  was  altered  to  "  effectually  called  to  faith  in  Clirist." 

i^Much  debate  was  held  over  this  final  clause,  but  it  was  retained  decisively. 
1*  "sovereign  power  "  perhaps  challenged  but  retained. 
»  Debate  signalized  on  this  section  but  no  details  given. 


Date  Due 

***•*"■■•••■• 

^ 

